David Singer

Do you know what you desire is tantamount to a progrom to evict Palestinians from their homelands?

I know you won't condemn, in fact you welcome support from, people who spout the following sorts of rasist statements:

'...there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people.'

'The sooner the sense of 'Palestinian Idenity' is erased from the pages of history the better off we will all be, including them.'

'The idea of 'Palestinian connection to the land' is invalid.'

Pretending the Palestinians will cease to exist, that their justifiable grievances arrising from the Israeli land stealing activities since the start of the UN Mandate, that they will simply walk away from their lands and abandon their capital Jersulum just because you want to turn them into Jordanians is just plain arrogrant and crazy.

Wake up to yourself you're just usuing another Israeli contrived weasel word argument to justify Israeli illegalities.

Thinking along similar lines as David Singer, why not divide Lebanon up between Israel and Syria to halt the mayhem there? I'll answer my own question by providing an example from the region: the division of the Kurdish people into various states has not exactly halted terrorism nor government repression. So why hand over Palestinian people to the Jordanian regime (which has murdered more, believe or not, Palestinians than even the Israeli regime)?

The Palestinians have been ill-served by the PLO and Islamic fundamentalists but that doesn't mean their aspirations to obtain their own state is illegitimate.

Actually, I can go one better if we're talking about regional division: give the whole area back to a restored Turkish empire. Were there suicide bombings back in 1900 when the Ottoman empire ruled the whole area? No. There was peace.

Yes, there was peace in the Middle East under the Ottomans, JS, in fact they seemed more interested in organising the Arabs in taking over East Europe, the Bosnian Islamists being proof.

Not sure whether Iran ever came under the Ottoman Empire, however?

Regards, BB, WA.

Let's take Singer's proposal at face value. That is, divide up the West Bank etc between Jordan and Israel. That still leaves the problem of oppression by both regimes of Palestinians - just as the division of areas where Kurds live between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Has the latter division of convenience resulted in peace or improvement in the conditions of Kurdish people? I suggest not.

I would also suggest that if we are discussing "peace" then why not simply get rid of Israel, divide it between the existing neighbouring regimes? True, many Jewish people would not be happy but it would be a convenient solution. Still, it would be a neat solution to the problems afflicting the Middle-East.

Muslim Palestinians happened when the Pope shook hands with Arafat with a wink and a nod. Behind this agenda was not the welfare of the Pretend Pals, but because the target was Jews: had there been no Jewish factor here - the Pretend Pals would never win a 3-line article on page 70 of any local paper. European hristianity and the Arab Muslims have been hell bent on Israel's destruction even before any land issue was relevent, or before they invented Muslim Palestinians - none of these creatures existed in 1948, when there was a multi-state arab attack on Israel, with a declared goal of genocide.

Will they also come up with Muslim Zionists one day, and demand a 4-state aka a 2-state for peace?

If a creature such as a Muslim Palestinian exists - please show us some evidence of it pre-Arafat.

This horrific, genodoal agenda lie, invented by Europe and the Arabs to negate Jews and their history and heritage, has the signs of destroying the Gospels instead. While they target Jews for still *OCCUPYING 12 %* of the land originally alloted them in the Balfour, then calling a deathly 3-state as a 2-state today [need a math teacher?], and replacing the name given the Jews by Europe now on those who antithise this name and hated it like they do Zionists today - there is another set of factors happening.

Jesus is made as a Palestinian [an impossibility considering this name was dumped on Jews 40 years after JC died]; and the Jewish Temple is deemed a Zionist Myth - which totally negates the Gospels which says one Jesus visited that mythical temple. And all of Europe plays dumb blonde.

It is clear the neo, post-60's Pretend Pals do not need a new golf course on soccer-sized Israel; nor did they need Jordan when numerous Arab states were created, much larger, and which states never existed before - unlike Israel.

At least the Nazis were honest about it.

[quote] but it would be a convenient solution [/quote]

I understand your jewish problem. How about first dividing your family as a convenient solution to the world's pollution, then all the decrepid parts dangling from your body?

Israel lives - inspite and despite your kind. Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history. Yes - let's destroy them.

At least the Nazis were honest about it.

Don't mean to butt in, but with Madame Palin blowing her bags so much about the Surge, or rather the Bush victory in Iraq, thought a bit said to be from the Washington Post may be interesting.

The Surge?

Every picture tells a story – especially a news report, including a movie camera shot.

Getting close to the US election, the Surge is being portrayed as a wonderful victorious example of the near-ending of so-called terrorism in Iraq.

However, as it happened the first some of us new of the change, was the TV report apparently from the Washington Post of Iraqi government Shia troops about to arrest a group of known Sunni insurgents when in dropped a US gunship and ordered the Shias to let the Sunnis go free.

It seemed Paul Bremer talked about the above, over three years before. Many of us historians, knew that there was a connection between Saddam’s Sunnis of Iraq and the Saudi Sunnis – indeed all Sunnis, even bin Laden, have a historical record of dualism, or better still, multiple-ism.

On the other hand, the Shias, because their Ayotallahs must always be blood-related to Mahomet, while the Sunnis are not - the Shias are the more genuine Muslims.

It was thus not surprising to well read historians to learn that a certain American general was co-opted to do a deal last year with the Iraqi Sunni Shaiks, who naturally over the US occupation had been urging on the large amount left of Saddam’s former 250, 000 frontline troops, who had naturally become the insurgents, not part of Al Quida terrorism, which Saddam apparently had never been interested in.

Therefore could the above be called a US victory, or rather an armistice or arrangement with an enemy that might have Saddam smiling in his grave remembering how the US helped helped him have that fruitless go at Iran during the 1980's.

Much Obliged, BB, WA

David Singer do you realise your rants are merely attracting the worst type of racist a.......s aka Iam Joseph

Oh and by the way Iam. Jesus might have been Jewish but he started our great religion based on the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John. Why don't you include them in your book and try including their lessons in your ... errrr ... 'thinking'.

DavidS/Bushbread,

“Yes, there was peace in the Middle East under the Ottomans”

Yes there was!

But it was the same sort of peace as you had under Saddam or Stalin (RIP).

And come to think of it...the descendants of the Ottomans’ are still generously bestowing their peace to the Kurds ( & Armenians).

Horus, you've got my drift. You could divide Palestine between Israel and Jordan or absorb Israel into neighbouring states (the Hamas line) or amalgamate Lebanon and Syria (used to be the case) or any other convenient border reconfiguration but you wouldn't have real peace. All you would have is a settlement that suits (often) unelected governments.

And yes, you're dead right about the oppression of the Kurds - in many ways worse than the Palestinians. The border settlement of 1919 has lead to peace for them.

Keith:

You really need to take a cold shower and cool down a bit.

Your suggestion that my proposal that Jordan, Israel and Egypt divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between them "is tantamount to a pogrom to evict Palestinians from their home lands" is a load of arrant nonsense.

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that my proposal need not involve the eviction of one single resident - Jew or Arab - from his current home.

Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent and distort my opinion? Disagree with it - certainly - with facts to support your view - and I will endeavour to deal with the issues you raise.

David JS

You fail to understand that the last recognised sovereign authority in the West Bank and Gaza was Great Britain in 1948. In international law the West Bank and Gaza are "no man's land" in which sovereignty has remained unallocated since then.

The Palestinian Authority (PA)has been given 15 years to reach an agreement with Israel on its allocation to enable the creation of the state the PA says it wants to establish. I think that is more than enough time to have reached an agreement. The PA hasn't got to first base in these negotiations since Israel is not prepared to meet the PA demands.

Assigning blame is a pointless and futile exercise.

A new direction is therefore now required to achieve allocation of sovereignty of the last remaining 6% of former Palestine that has not already been allocated between Israel and Jordan.

Your proposal to get rid of Israel certainly has the support of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The problem however is that this can only be achieved by war. I am interested in seeking peaceful outcomes without resorting to war.

Iam Joseph:

I am not interested in shooting the messangers - only in anwering their messages in the most honest way I can. Hopefully they might be better informed as a result

David, If they had a strong UN force in Palestine/Israel, rather than Israel having the latest in nuclear weapons making her hated by the whole Middle East and much of the world, there would be much more contentment.

It is said time and time again by historians that the Kantian philosophy backed by not one single strong power, but by a Federation of Nations, is the only way to promote perpetual peace.

The trouble with the last couple of centuries the world has been under the heels of the two Anglophile powers Great Britain and America, the whole thing spoilt by arrant colonialism and economic greed - that Maynard Keynes gave such warnings about before he died near the end of WW2.

Why is it right now that we have more billionaires than ever while the world is so troubled about going broke?

I

David Singer

You conveniently and deliberately ignore the illegal settlements and the illegal eviction of the Palenstians from those areas since '67.

Why don't they count in your grand scheme?

Why don't you reject Iam Joseph's racism ... it is an improvement that you haven't thanked himn for his support though.

Good man.

'Your proposal to get rid of Israel certainly has the support of the Arab League...'

Quite wrong and you know it. Why do you bother with such deliberate lies?

The Arab League has offered to guarantee Israel security of it's borders ... if set as in '67.

keith

You seem blissfully unaware that the Muslim fanatics are also pushing Christians, members of your own faith, out of their lands. Talk to some Copts, or Lebanese Christians. Jews aren't the only ones copping the wrath of the Islamists.

Count the Druze, Baha'i and Samaritans, now sheltering in Israel, or for that matter the Palestinian Christians. Allow Israel to disappear and the next blood bath will be the Christian world. I would have thought that you would have some concern for your Christian brethren there even if you have no compassion for over 800,00 Jews pushed out of Arab countries.

The West Bank was in fact once part of Jordan. The idea of returning it to Jordan is in fact a long standing one, assuming Jordan wants it back. The Gaza strip was part of Egypt but the Egyptians have so far declined to include it again in their territory.

"They began as dozens....but now they are hundreds"

who? radical settlers.

I actually thought there were more of them, but it seems not. Still, the important point is 2fold.

1/ The trend. (increasing...growing)
2/ The Objective (New Temple)

this was brought out this morning on an ABC report. A settler was interviewed and when asked "Where does it end?" responded without even the slightest hesitation "The rebuilding of the Temple".

These folk are living with the same mindset of Nehemiah's day..of Joshua... and they are using the same methods and motives.

-God gave us this land.
-When in a war, one must fight.

The reader can form his/her own opinions about the rightness or wrongness of this movement, in terms of his/her own understanding, but I simply bring this out in support of my own mantra which is:

"The history and future of the Middle East (and the world) hinges on Jerusalem."

Believe....mock... argue.. disagree... dispute...accept.. it makes not a scrap of difference to the ultimate outcome, which will be the events of Matthew Ch 24 and 25.

Then, the only question which will be important is "Am I a sheep or a goat"

A report about this:

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/09/26/rise-of-radical-settler-movement/

<<Hard-core right-wing settlers have responded to limited army operations in recent weeks by blocking roads, rioting spontaneously, throwing stones at Palestinian vehicles and burning Palestinian orchards and fields all over the West Bank, a territory that Israel has occupied since 1967.

…In Jewish settlements like Yitzhar, an extremist bastion on the hilltops commanding the Palestinian city of Nablus…a local war is already being waged. One Saturday in mid-September…scores of men from Yitzhar rampaged through the Palestinian village, hurling rocks and firing guns, in what the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, described as a “pogrom.” Several Palestinians were hospitalized with gunshot wounds.>>

What this last paragraph does not say, is that it was in response to a Palestinian who burned down one of the Jewish homes, and stabbed a 9 yr old boy while fleeing.

To the settler Jews... the West Bank is Biblical "Samaria" and non radical jews are now adopting this term in stories.

Let us all watch.......and wait..... and pray, but most of all, be ready.

Keith:

In claiming that my statement that getting rid of Israel has the support of the Arab League is "deliberate lies" you continue to display your pathetic ignorance of the Arab-Jewish conflict. The following facts support my claim:

1. The many wars fought between Israel and its Arab enemies since 1948.

2. The Arab boycotts to destroy Israel economically.

3. The Arab League endorsement of the PLO as the sole spokesman of the Palestinian Arabs endorses the PLO Covenant which contains the following provisions:

"Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Don't come back and try to squib the issue by telling me these provisions have been repealed. They have not despite all the "weasel words" (your term) used by the Arabs claiming they have.

Whether you agree with my view on their non-revocation or not do you endorse these statements in the PLO Covenant Keith or do you reject them?

Just an "I endorse" or " I reject" answer will suffice. No need for a long winded and insulting diatribe.

Disagree with my statements by furnishing facts in rebuttal if you will. Don't simply answer them by calling me a liar or some of the other choice epithets you use to seek to discredit me and others who don't accord with your viewpoint

Polycarp

You really must learn something about Judaism. And about the press.

A TV interview of one person is hardly a real statement. Particularly when the press is looking for scandal and making news into entertainment, and that includes the ABC.

The number of Jews who actually want a third temple is minimal. The Temple represents a long discarded view of the religion. And the belief that Samaria is a gift from God hardly ranks in an Israeli population most of whom barely believe in God.

The truth is that Israel in the 19th century was a semi-desert, with a very small population, according to Turkish census. There were always a few Jews, descendents of those who had stayed after the wars with Rome. (Rome had only forbidden the Jerusalem region to Jews). Others Jews arrived, many from Muslim lands and from Russia and Poland to swell the population. Jerusalem already had a majority Jewish population.

There was no such state as Palestine. Jews were forced out of Jerusalem by Arab invaders as well as from places like Hebron and Tiberias, later the Israelis reclaimed their homes after the Arabs launched a series of unsuccessful wars on the new state. They also established the settlements, a controversial step, although these were often in land allocated to the Jews by the UN.

You should also be careful about blogs many of which are by biased people (both ways). The anti-western Islamic movement is very active. Remember the remarks of Hilaly? This is not to be anti-Muslim, but some, claiming to be believers have an awful agenda. The Islamic republics have an incredibly bad record of human rights (stoning, enslavement of women etc) which they hide by getting Islamic dictatorships represented on UN Commissions where they vote against any censure moves against them.

Hi Logic,

Nice to see you again.

I must correct you on your pointing to 'my' faith. I have none, that could identify with any of those religions organisations called churchs, sects, books, or whatever.

In so much that we Westerners have adopted the Christianity of the Sermon on the Mount and the New Testament as part of the pillars of our culture or way of doing things ... well yes you could be right in that broader sense.

I once thought I was either agnostic or athiest but I have recently discovered I'm neither, so have decided like Christ, to become irreligious, in it's worst possible sense (... so be warned). In this much narrower and personal sense ... you are making awfully wayward assumptions.

We tend to agree on many things in the disputed and unhappy region. I think you'd agree changing the status of mordern (Post '67) Palestine from Palestine to Jordan achieves or solves little. The people who have had their land stolen since '67 still exist and their lands ar still stolen. That issue would still fester until ... well we don't need to go over either of our old and comfortable positions do we? Suffice to say the disputation would still exist.

You haven't been to Bisbane recently?

Dear Logic ..yes welcome back :)

Please don't worry.. I can discern between the lines of biased blogs.

The Silverstein one is quite opposed to the Temple idea.

Further...the idea that 'hundreds' of settlers want a new temple is hardly anything other than a demographic 'minimal' to quote you.

In fact.. I would have thought it was much more. But the main focal point I made was:

From dozens to hundreds.... is a trend.

It should be born in mind also that those hundreds are said to be those willing to act radically and even violently in support of their cause. Thus it goes without saying that there would be many sharing their view up to but not including the violence aspect.

I hardly think Orthodox Jews do not want a 3rd temple? would you disagree? and I futher suggest that there are many more than a few hundred Orthodox Jews in Israel no?

Don't worry.. for me it depends on the Almighty..not my ability to make any song and dance about it all :)

Dear Keith..hope you are well mate...

On the reasoning you used in your last post.

"The people who's land was stolen still exist"

Fair point. But let's ask this:

If the week before they declared it 'their land' they had actually taken it from Jewish settlers.. would their claim be valid?

Or..if the generation before them, had taken it from Jewish settlers.. would their claim be valid?

and so it goes,... right back to when it was taken from the Jews by the Romans.

In the end....it is most difficult to determine who has a rightful claim because all parties will dispute it from their own historical and or theological perspective.
-The Jews will be either secular or Religious.

1/ Secular "We want a homeland..and will carve it out in our historic homeland and keep it by virtue of power/military balance and appropriate alliances" (i.e.. in the same way that every other state in the world maintains it's borders)

2/ Religious "God gave us this land, and no matter what anyone says, it's ours and we will defend/retake it all"

Palestinians will:

1/ Seek to deny that Jews ever had a claim to the land.
2/ Seek to use more recent history to support their own claim.
3/ Seek to use all means, both military and political to support/persue their claim.

4/ So in the end.. at the human level it boils down to the biggest guns.
Hezbollah and Hamas certainly take this view, though they add the theological argument about it being an Islamic Waqf...which is the point which brings us back to point 4 above.

There seems to be an even greater problem to a 'Two-State Solution' at the moment. The disunity of the Palestinian leadership would not allow for stability, even if they were to become autonomous.

Hypothetically, if Ahmadinejad received his wish of "wiping Israel from the map," it's quite possible that the power struggle between Hamas, Fatah and other factions would produce even more bloodshed than anything else in recent years.

Let's not forget that Hamas is a terrorist organization, who uses violence to rule over Gaza. They also seem to hate political enemies with the same zeal that they hate Israel, their sworn enemy.

Here are some extracts from Hamas's "Charter of Allah":

Article 6: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian organisation which owes it loyalty to Allah, derives its way of life from Islam and strives to raise the banner of Islam over every inch of Palestine.”

Article 8: “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its path. Death for the sake of Allah is its most sublime belief.”

Article 13: “So-called peaceful solutions to the Palestinian problem are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic resistance Movement because renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion...Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are merely a waste of time.”

Article 15: “When our enemies usurp Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a binding duty on all Muslims. In order to confront the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews there is no escape from the banner of Jihad.”

Article 22: “The enemies...used their money to establish secret organisations to destroy and to fulfil Zionist interests. They inspire the United Nations and the Security Council in order to rule the world.”

David Singer,

'In claiming that my statement that getting rid of Israel has the support of the Arab League is "deliberate lies" you continue to display your pathetic ignorance of the Arab-Jewish conflict. '

Care to deny you are unfamiliar with the following offer from the Arab League first proposed in Beirut in 2002 and endorsed in Riydah in 2007.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm
'The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

basically as Wikipedia says

'The plan consists of a proposal to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. It offers Israel normalization of relations and comprehensive peace agreements with Arab countries in exchange for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the Occupied Territories including the Golan Heights, and the recognition of "an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital," as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.'

Now mate, unlike you, I can and do back up my statements with quotes and references. You shoud try to back up your assertion with a repuditation of the above offer.

Bet you can't.

polycarp
your logic is suspect.

Why draw the line with the Romans? Why not go back to the people residing there before to the Hebrews arrived from Egypt. Oh that's right ... your book says your God gave you title ... what a joke.

I've done my family history and I'm descended from them and I want my land back ... hahahaha

Hey Manik Josiah

Isnt what Ahmadinejad wants for Israel exactly the same as what David Singer wants for the Palestinian State centered on East Jerusalum, the West Bank and Gaza?

I must point out I have never heard Ahmadinejad say he wants to kill the Jews of Israel. If you can show me that ... with references please do.
I have seen where he wants to wipe the counrty Israel off the map.

And please before you rant show me how that differs from David Singer's proposal to wipe Palestine off the map.

Keith,

The problem with this proposal is the same one that will be for any of them: who has the rights to Jerusalem?

But without going into the "Jerusalem problem," I believe that the Golan heights presents another dilemma. An Israeli withdrawal from this position may be helpful for peace, but how long will that peace remain? Peaceful relations between Syria and Israel may even last for years, but what of the next generation?

I don't have any quotes or references to back this up, but I hope you accept it all the same. I stood at a lookout on the Golan heights back in June and it was a beautiful sight. However, from that vantage point it seems like only a stone's throw (or mortar's fire) from Kibbutz En Gev, and even Tiberius across the Sea of Galilee.

The residents of Sderot, near Gaza, face the reality of rockets landing regularly in their homes, schools and community. To give over all of the the Golan heights may present a similar situation for residents of the Galilee in the future.

MaNiK_JoSiAh

The issue of Jerusalem is actually dealt with in the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel which hopefully provides the parameters and basis on which negotiations could be successfully concluded with Jordan in relation to Jerusalem.

It is up to the negotiators to use their skills and innovative thought processes to settle the issue of Jerusalem to each side's satisfaction based on the peace treaty provisions.

The Golan Heights is a separate issue that involves Syria and Israel. It will become more amenable to resolution after sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel, Jordan and Egypt is finalised. Again division of sovereignty could be the key.

There is no magic wand that can be waved to bring instant and lasting peace. Patience and staying power are both required to firstly defuse and then finally end the 130 years old running conflict between Jews and Arabs.

David Singer

The status of Jerusalem was actually dealt with in the UN Partition of Palestine in '48, and the 1949 Armistice Agreements. You should check also the actions of Jordan in relation to Jerusalem ... and you propose to give control back to them ... odd really.

You should also check the UN resolutions in relation to Israel's illegal occupation of Jerusalem starting with Resolution 252.

http://www.mideastweb.org/sc252.htm

After all these legitimate and decent attempts, made by Palestinians in conjunction with all the Arab states, at a resolution of peace, why is it that you want only to accept an agreement made between Jordan and Israel in 1994?

I put it to you it is that you see this course as more beneficial to Israel and excludes input from the native Palestinian residents thereby giving greater possibility of allowing Israel a sneaky and underhand attempt at a legitimisation of Israel's past public illegalities. A creeping progrom.

Now David Singer you haven't responded to my latest posts. I think you have been backed into a corner, of unknown making. I might at this point ask you which of us, to paraphrase your words, continues to display a basic want of ignorance of the Arab-Jewish conflict?

I have just watched both Obama and McCain asked whether they would go to Israel's aid if it was invaded.

You might consider their respective responses. Both were the same ... not surprising neither said yes. Which indicates if the cash dries up you won't be able to rely on American technology or blood.

In light of the present economic melt down, you better start considering that Arab League proposal ... before it's too late.

Keith:

The Arabs rejected the 1948 Partition Plan. Those days will not come back again.

General Assembly resolutions have no binding force.

I am relying on the 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel because it represents a signed treaty between two sovereign states one of which has sovereignty in 17% of former Palestine and the other sovereignty in 77% of former Palestine. It is appropriate that they now be the negotiating parties as to the division of the remaining 6% of former Palestine as the Palestinian Authority has proved it itself incapable of negotiating a division with Israel after 15 years of negotiations.

I have given you my reasons why the 2002 Arab League Plan will end up in the garbage bin alongside the negotiations conducted with the PA.
If negotiations on that plan are now your option, then best of British. Perhaps you should write an article expressing your views.

Please tell me specifically what matters in your posts I have not responded to.

David Singer

'I have given you my reasons why the 2002 Arab League Plan will end up in the garbage bin alongside the negotiations conducted with the PA.'

Oh really when and where? Cos it wasn't in this forum.

Mr David Singer

'Please tell me specifically what matters in your posts I have not responded to.'
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 2:11:47 PM

Well here are five very specific matters in my posts to you which you have evaded a straigth forward, and in some case any, response:

One:
'David Singer do you realise your rants are merely attracting the worst type of racist a.......s aka Iam Joseph'
4 October 2008 9:18:34 PM

Two:
'You conveniently and deliberately ignore the illegal settlements and the illegal eviction of the Palenstians from those areas since '67.
Why don't they count in your grand scheme?'
5 October 2008 3:08:46 PM

Three:
'Why don't you reject Iam Joseph's racism ...'
5 October 2008 3:08:46 PM

Four:
'Care to deny you are unfamiliar with the following offer from the Arab League first proposed in Beirut in 2002 and endorsed in Riydah in 2007.
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm
'The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002'
7 October 2008 11:16:30 AM

Five:
'I put it to you it is that you see this course as more beneficial to Israel and excludes input from the native Palestinian residents thereby giving greater possibility of allowing Israel a sneaky and underhand attempt at a legitimisation of Israel's past public illegalities. A creeping progrom.'
8 October 2008 12:49:30 PM

Given your past exhibition of racism and tunnel vision ... I'm really not holding my breath waiting for a reasoned response.

Manik Josiah

'An Israeli withdrawal from this position may be helpful for peace, but how long will that peace remain? Peaceful relations between Syria and Israel may even last for years, but what of the next generation?'

I agree long term peace will be very difficult to maintain ... given Israel's perchant for territorial expansionism ... since '67.