SteeleRedux,

The point is that your simplistic far leftist assessments are obviously chaotic and wrong. One example is enough to prove that.

Can anybody explain to me what is meant by the use of the terms 'left' and 'right' in the context of this discussion and others related to political and public policy discussions?

I see them used all the time, often as what seems to be intended as an insult or at least a dismissive pejorative, but I haven't been able to find any obvious consistency in the way they are used that might shed some light on what they signify to the users.

The historical usage doesn't help, deriving from the seating positions in the French National Assembly of 1789, during the revolution and referring to revolutionists and pro-monarchists respectively.

A more modern source seems as perplexed as I am

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

"The problem with conventional approaches to the left-right political spectrum is that they either fail to define the alternatives in question, or proceed to define them in terms of non-essentials."

Wikipedia gives a vast list of examples of disparate political movements and philosophical/ideological conceptualisations, which doesn't help much.

"There is general agreement that the Left includes: progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists.

There is also general consensus that the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists and fascists."

So, following the fine example of Dr Johnson and the OED in defining the language as she is spoke and writ, I thought it would be best to be guided by those who use the terms.

Can anyone help me?

SR,

I am surprised that you consider threat posed by the tens of thousands of high explosive rockets fired from Gaza and Lebanon from civilian areas to be mere whimsy by the Israelis. Either you are a hard man accustomed war and dismissive of personal danger, or you simply don't care because they are only Jews.

With regards the legal status of the "occupation" my opinion is that the legal status of the west bank is largely irrelevant as the US veto makes it totally unenforceable, secondly as mentioned before trying to wind the clock back five decades is not only hugely impractical but wildly unlikely, as is the cession of the occupied Finnish territories by Russia.

However, I am aware of the UNSC resolution of 1979, and the non binding advisory of the International court, however, the subsequent peace treaty of 1994 by which Jordan (previous owner of the west bank) ceded the territory to Israel, as far as I am aware, makes the west bank part of Israel, and throws the question of the "occupied" status into question.

Dear SM,

<<the subsequent peace treaty of 1994 by which Jordan (previous owner of the west bank) ceded the territory to Israel, as far as I am aware, makes the west bank part of Israel>>

Jordan already renounced its claim to the West Bank in 1988 and the 1994 peace treaty did not discuss the issue.

The only hint to the existence of the West Bank was in Appendix I which discusses the exact borders, item 2A-7:

"The orthophoto maps and image maps showing the line separating Jordan from the territory that came under Israeli Military government control in 1967 shall have that line indicated in a different presentation and the legend shall carry on it the following disclaimer:
"This line is the administrative boundary between Jordan and the territory which came under Israeli military government control in 1967. Any treatment of this line shall be without prejudice to the status of the territory."

I am confused, if Jordan, the undisputed holder of the west bank
ceded it to Israel, that is conclusive I presume.

However as most (all ?) ME countries believe Israel does not exist is
that why they claim it is occupied territory ?
Who is the occupier ? A non existent country ?

Dear Bazz,

The following link may help answer a few questions:

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