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.

After all these years, especially in the Internet era when all the information is so accessible, how is that we STILL get the robotic misinformation from Jeremy, david, evan jones, and their ilk?

"League of Nations Mandate...reads like the "single-state solution".

Of course it does. That is precisely why the League of Nations gave Britain the Mandate of Palestine; to create the Jewish homeland. Britain continually frustrated this obligation

"doesn't give Jews the right to exclude Palestinians from any part of the land."

Who has ever said it did?

"no doubt refers to the UN-decided partition of 1947"

Quite right. UNSCOP advised, and the UNGA passed a Resolution authorising a party to effect this. BUT, what have you left out? And HOW could you possibly leave this out and be expected to be taken seriously?

A little event in May, 1948? You know, all the surrounding armies invading what was to be the Arab Palestine; with Egypt and Jordan gobbling it all for themselves. Jordan even declared de jure sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, which the entire world rejected except for Britian and pakistan, renaming these ancient lands "the West Bank [of Jordan]" They even made West Bank Arab refugees Jordanian citizens.

"which remains the only legal basis for determining the borders of the two states".

Wrong. The UNGA Partition Resolution 181 was not a "legal" act, as the UNGA does not have "legal" powers. As the author correctly notes, the UNGA doesn't and cannot "create" states; it only recognises claims to statehood. On 11 May 1949, the UNGA in Resolution 273 accepted the advice of the Security Council and admitted Israel to the UNGA.

It is Resolution 273 that gives Israel its international legitimacy. Since WW2, many new nations have had to grow exactly the same process from Pakistan to East Timor.

"Then are not the Palestinians equally entitled to live in any part of Palestine ?"

"Palestine" ceased to exist in 1948/49. Citizens of Israel are entitled to live in Israel, along with any others the Israeli states allows. It is the same with ALL UN member states.

And so it goes another effort by the Israeli apologist Singer,all those nice settlers there not stealing land and murdering people,no it's the biblical Judea and Samaria,what rubbish using the Bible to justify things is like using the daily Tele to do that,neither are noted for accuracy.
The Settler thugs and thieves carry on while Singer looks the other way,what are the Palestinians have they now become the Unerwünschten of Israel now,you learned well from the Nazis Mr Singer in oppressing people.
Considering the UN created Israel what cant the Palestinians declare a State and see who recognizes it,then see what happens.
By the way is the Israeli Propaganda Dept and the men from the ministry who will show up here shortly to defend you,going have they been in touch,just curious

"And so it goes another effort by the Israeli apologist Singer"

Please John, Singer is not an "Israeli apologist", he only represents the Jewish settlers - a cancerous growth and enemies to the majority of Israelis. He does not even speak for all those 500,000 settlers, just for about half of them: the other half, especially in East Jerusalem, are poor families that were lured into the West Bank with interest-free mortgages (conditioned on them staying there) and are longing to get out of there if only they could receive alternate housing within Israel.

Israelis are held hostage by those settlers, they are forced to send their children to guard and protect them, sometimes even to be killed and wounded for those heartless fanatic settlers, who are in fact not Israelis, but hard-core Jewish-nationals (a nationality in the guise of religion).

According to the United-Nations 1947 resolution, Israelis deserve to have their own state, however small, but a place which they can call home. One result of the settlers' land-grabbing and suffocating the two-state solution, is the call, expressed by several members of this forum, for a one-state solution: that would reward the settlers and punish ordinary Israelis, in fact spelling their cultural death, and ultimately their physical death as well because unless Israelis can defend themselves in their own state, the Islamists of the region (who already took control of the Gaza strip and terrorize its miserable inhabitants) would not tolerate any non-Muslim living in the area.