The author says

"The last recognised sovereign occupier of the West Bank and Gaza was Great
Britain as Mandatory Authority under the Mandate for Palestine conferred on it
by the now defunct League of Nations."

No doubt there may be some technical point why he would claim to ignore the
UN-decided partition of 1947. But the League of Nations Mandate can be read
at http://www.mideastweb.org/mandate.htm. It reads rather like the so-called
"single-state solution" - it certainly doesn't give Jews the right to exclude
Palestinians from any part of the land.

He says

"The Arabs were offered - and refused - a state by the UN in 1947 in 100 per
cent of the West Bank and Gaza plus additional land in what is now Israel."

The no doubt refers to the UN-decided partition of 1947, which remains the only
legal basis for determining the borders of the two states. (He points out,
correctly, that "The "June-1967 borders" are not borders ...")

He says

"The 500,000 Jews now living in the West Bank are legally entitled to do so by
virtue of the legal rights conferred on them under the League of Nations and
United Nations Charter."

Maybe he is here referring to the Leagur of Nations Mandate - then are not the
Palestinians equally entitled to live in any part of Palestine ?

He says

"The opportunities existing between 1947-1967 will not be returning in 2009 or
at any time thereafter."

I think the author is showing his true colours here - the legalities don't
actually matter to him - what Israel can get and keep by force is, to him,
justified.

Just a quick obsevation if I may.

I note that through the article the word Palestinians does not occur. Sure there is reference to the Palestinian Authority quickly abbreviated to PA and use of the word Palestinian State although only once directly from the author himself otherwise zip.

Instead they are 'Arabs'.

"The Arabs were offered - and refused - a state by the UN in 1947..."

"The Arabs could have created a state in 100 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza..."

"Arab rejectionism for the last 62 years has come..."

"The Arabs have had 90 years to mature their views..."

That is how you disappear a people.

You are a racist singer.
Time to remove this religious theocracy that is israel and bring about one secular state for the inhabitants of "judea and samaria" as you lot call it.

South Africa learnt the hard way. The world needs to teach the jews the same lesson. Genocide, apartheid and wars of conquest and expansion are unacceptable in this day and age and israel needs to be stopped.

In stating that "The Palestinian Authority appears to have a totally misconceived notion of the UN as a body that can create states." David Singer ignores the fact that the UN created Israel by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.

Mr. Singer states:

"Mere declarations of statehood are insufficient to receive recognition by the UN and admission to membership.
Applicants seeking admission to the UN need to establish:
1. the borders of the new state; and
2. complete and effective control within those borders"

In 1947 Israel did not exist and had neither defined borders nor control within those borders.

David Singer also wrote:

"Negotiations have hit a brick wall as the PA refuses to change its negotiating stance of the last 16 years by even the slightest concession or admission that Israel also has claims at least as good as the PA to sovereignty in at those parts of the West Bank in which Jews currently reside."

Israel has no claim at all to the areas in the West Bank where Jews reside. As occupying power Israel may set up housing for the occupying troops and their families. However, it is illegal under international law for an occupying power to set up permanent civilian settlements in territory taken by an act of war.

Mr. Singer states “The Arabs have had 90 years to mature their views since the small territory of "Palestine" was slated for reconstitution of the Jewish National Home and severed from the other 99.99 per cent of the land freed from the Ottoman Empire by the British and the French and designated for Arab self-determination.”

The Balfour Declaration declared Palestine “the Jewish National Home”. However Balfour decided that without consulting the people actually living in Palestine. Balfour stated that he wanted to exclude Jews from England in the 1905 debate on the Aliens Act. He was a Jew hater who was quite happy to make other people’s land a Jewish Homeland but didn’t want them in England.

Okay this would appear not to have been a fluke. I have looked back over the last six articles posted by this author and not once has there been a direct use of the word Palestinians.

I am disturbed by what this implies about the author and the material and would invite the powers that be in OLO to state their position on the matter.

This may have been raised and dealt with before if so may I have a link to it.

I'm stagger that this tosh could be written by someone practising as a lawyer.
The man has no respect for the facts.
one example with suffice:
"The PA rejected two Israeli proposals in 2000 and 2008 that would have seen the PA receive sovereignty in 90-100 per cent of the West Bank or its territorial equivalent in area."
Israel offered nothing in 2000 (the late Tanya Reinhart demolished this long running lie in her 2002 book Israel/Palestine) and 2008. And so on.
Ben-Gurion et al never accepted the legitimacy of the UN partition (indeed, it had no legitimacy, being a product of the ulimate in Zionist lobbying and realpolitik by the major powers), but merely sought to use it as a stalking horse. Hence the ongoing refusal of Israel to set its own borders.
Lebensraum is the objective, and this author is one of Israel's myriad gauleiters to this end.