While Peter Singer parades as an ethicist, he apparently sees no problem in placing Hamas, the Palestinian resistance movement, on the same level as the colonising, apartheid state of Israel - or in flaunting his profound (and inexcusable) ignorance on the Palestine/Israel issue on Monday night's Q & A:
Tony Jones: Now Peter Singer, you've been critical of both Hamas and Israel. So let's hear your...
Peter Singer: Exactly. I am critical of both... and I think the situation is a tragic one and it has resulted in the tragedy that we're talking about this time.
Tragic? It's a massacre, stupid.
But clearly there are extremists on both sides. And, you know, there was hope some years ago, when Rabin was prime minister... But, sadly, he was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli  and hopes for peace went down.
Rabin? An Israeli war criminal:
As a Palmach commander in 1948, Rabin was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian towns of Ramle and Lydda.
As Israel's chief of staff in 1967, Rabin was asked by Israeli PM Levi Eshkol "what would happen if the Egyptians [then in control of the Gaza Strip] simply marched the [Palestinian] refugees [who had been there since 1948] - women and children in the vanguard - toward the border with Israel. Rabin said they would not do that, and if they did, as soon as the IDF had killed the first 100, the rest would go back to Gaza." (1967: Israel, the War & the Year that Transformed the Middle East, Tom Segev, p 524)
As defence minister in the Shamir government he oversaw Israel's ruthless suppression of the first Palestinian Intifada (1987-1991), with his infamous 'break their bones' policy.
As Israeli prime minister in 1994, following the massacre of 29 Palestinian worshippers in Hebron's Ibrahimi Mosque, Rabin had the opportunity to evacuate Hebron's particularly vile Israeli settler community from the city. Instead, in the words of Haaretz journalist Amira Hass, he "decided to continue with the traditional policy of pampering the settlers, and instructed the army to punish the Palestinians for the massacre with a prolonged curfew, restrictions on movement, the closing of shops and marketplaces, and criminal forgiveness for the violence of the settlers." (See my 28/2/15 post An Anti-Semite's Dream Jews.)
It is telling that Singer seems more concerned about the assassination of one Israeli war criminal than he is about the 114 innocent Palestinian civilians murdered on the Gaza border so far.
And since then... both sides have gone to extremes. Certainly, the Israeli government has gone to extremes and has not shown and has not shown signs of really being interested in negotiating peace or stopping settlements.
Negotiating peace or stopping settlements? Since when has any Israeli government been serious about either?
But on the other hand, you have to say, as far as Hamas is concerned... Greg [Sheridan] is right...
Sheridan is right? I can guarantee that Singer has never picked up a copy of the Australian and read any of Sheridan's sermons in praise of what he once called "the plucky country." Not once.
... - they are a terrorist organisation, they are firing rockets into Israel, they are openly trying to kill Israelis where they can, and they did reject offers of cooperation back when Israel left Gaza. So that's tragedy for the people of Gaza. And it's very hard to see a way out.
Terrorist organisation? Offers of cooperation? This is just the kind of stuff you'd expect to hear from your average brainwashed supporter of Israel.
Tony Jones: Let's go to the original question, which was asking about Australia's vote to reject the investigation into an incident which killed a large number of people and wounded thousands. What's your view on that?
Peter Singer: I would have liked to see an investigation, both into why Israel used live fire...
Why Israel used live fire? Seriously, has Israel ever stopped using live fire?
... and could not find a less lethal way of preventing people from attacking and cutting through the fence, but also why Hamas was inviting people to go to the fence when Israel had made it clear that it was going to use force to prevent people, that there clearly was a risk of live ammunition, of people being killed.
More regurgitated Israeli propaganda! Then this:
And why people would go there with their children and babies actually, you know, is mind-boggling to me. What kind of a person would you have to be to say, 'I'm gonna take my baby to this area where there's likely to be firing.'
A little research is apparently beyond Singer: "Leila [al-Ghandour's] family told media that the baby's mother had left the child at home to join the demonstrations. When the infant began crying her uncle took her towards the protest area in order to locate his sister. Reports on Palestinian social media said Leila had been in a tent away from the security fence when a tear gas canister was dropped by a drone." (Gaza protests: Eight-month-old baby 'dies from tear gas inhalation' after 'massacre' at border, Bethan McKernan, independent.co.uk, 15/5/18)