More and more desperate Weasel words defending the fascist Jewish state.

Camo

Your last two sentences describe he current conditions faced by Palestinians. And of course you'll still blindly and stupidly defend Israel's outrageous nazi like behaviour.

Just take a look at the racism of that Russian Jew in your cabinet.

All it's members were or are soldiers, we used to call such Governments ... Military Juntas.

"Palestinian houses have been demolished by Israel for security reasons" So all the demolitions and dispossessions are for 'security reasons', or because they did not have building permits,really? What authority issues the permits, let me guess....Israel perhaps? How convenient. So when Israeli 'settlers' replace the Palestinians Israel is more secure, of course.

"The majority of Israelis do not want control of the West Bank", then why are more 'settlers' building houses there?

If the author wants to discredit Professor Halper for supposedly telling lies, then he should desist from telling porkies of his own.

Houses demolished because they have no building permits? Oh, please ...

Even if Palestinians didn't have the proverbial eye-of-a-needle chance of obtaining a building permit, does this excuse also extend to the mosques, clinics, kindergartens, schools, roads, footpaths, water tanks, powerhouses, office buildings and libraries that have been demolished? They can't all lack building permits.

And do the thousands of Palestinian olive trees that have been 'demolished', many of which are several hundred years old, also lack building permits?

And if Professor Halper ‘denies’ Israel’s 'building permits' and ‘security reasons’ defences, then he is in good company – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United Nations and International Law all reject them, too.

And as for Professor Halper’s wording on the use of the words ‘Palestinian’, ‘Arabs’, ‘occupation’ and the political priority status of the ‘two-state solution’, I was also at the lecture … and heard enough to know that the author has taken the Professor’s wording woefully out of context. Halper was talking as a Jewish Israeli citizen about Jewish Israeli identity and the Jewish Israeli attitude to the Palestinians as being Arabs living in Israel rather than as a definitive culture occupying the historical land of Palestine. His overall argument was that there is nothing specifically Jewish about this attitude – that it’s a common historical attitude among colonialist cultures (sound familiar)?

The author prefers to overlook other words that Halper said … for example, that the American-born and raised professor felt such an historical connection to the land of Israel that he chose to move there over 30 years ago. If he despises Israel as much as the author indicates, then he could have left the place a long time ago. It’s because of his Israeli identity and his sense of connection to Israel, that he so passionately wants justice for its other ancient inhabitants

SJF, it's pretty clear that you were at the lecture, since all you've done is parrot back Halper's arguments.

I too was at the lecture, and Halper's use of the words "Palestinians", "Arabs" and "occupation" - or rather his argument that Israelis don't use those words - seemed to be meant to portray Israelis as oblivious idiots who ignore the Palestinians. But of course the problem, context or not, is that his statements are simply not true. Israeli politics and discourse are consumed by the Palestinian conflict, peace and the like. Same with Halper's ridiculous assertion that all Israelis and Israeli politicians frame the Arabs as their eternal enemies. What of the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the Oslo Accords? What of Olmert's repeatedly calling for "painful concessions" for the sake of peace. If only the Palestinian camp had any articulating the need for painful concessions necessary to end the conflict.

As for your argument about the demolitions of mosques, libraries, etc., that too seems to be taken straight from Halper with no evidence to back it up. There were some mosques targeted during the recent Israeli action in Gaza, but even Hamas didn't protest much because they stored weapons there. That's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law (as is using civilians as human shields), and under both it turns otherwise protected places, like mosques and hospitals, into legitimate military targets.

I'm also pretty sure that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Geneva Conventions, the UN and International law all also reject terrorism - meaning the intentional targeting of civilians - which is perpetrated by Hamas.

I'm also sure that under international law and the UN Charter, a country is lawfully entitled to respond in self-defence when its sovereign territory comes under attack. There is simply no other way to describe 10,000 Hamas rockets fired at pre-1967 Israeli towns, and so Israel has/had every right to respond as it did.

I deeply envy Leigh. Imagine being so certain that an entire ethnic group is terrorist that you can summarily dismiss any argument to the contrary.

To a small mind, the world is such a simple place.

keith,

When the Austrians elected a racist like that russian Jew, Israel withdrew its ambassador. Yet when Israel elects a right wing extremist to cabinet nothing happens. There never was a peace process - the Palestanians never had a partner for peace. But now, with the election of this new government, even the pretext will end.

The two state solution is dead. There will eventually be a one state solution with majority Palestanian rule, but this won't come about until much more blood has been spilled (Palestinian of course)/