Palestinians own 40% of West Bank Settlements

[White Doors]

No the devil is on your rabid ideaology. It blinds you to the issues.

Israel offered today to forego the settlements for peace and this is not the first time that they were met with rocket fire in response.

grow up

[Higgly]

No the devil is on your rabid ideaology. It blinds you to the issues.

Israel offered today to forego the settlements for peace and this is not the first time that they were met with rocket fire in response.

grow up

OK. Let's discuss Israel's offer. What do you think it says?

[Rue]

Let's respond to Higgly's attempts to twist the responses I have made. I stated that under international law, Israel has the right to defensible borders and Higgly responded it does not. Well again like history he tries to revise, he is now trying to rewrite what international law states.

The point is under international law and the very conventions Higgly likes to quote, Israel has the right under international law to create defensible borders. So in answer to his question where should the borders go-that is precisely why there is a dispute and if he bothered to try read and make an effort to try understand anything I stated or read for himself he would understand the border between Jordan and Israel HAS NEVER been defined and how it will be defined will be based on the international doctrine of defensible borders. Higgly again can pretend all he wants that the law will not exist but it does.

Now Higgly then tried to bring up another unrelated topic to the international law doctrine of defensible borders and suggest that the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank are in contravention to the Geneva convention.

If he bothered to read what I wrote, he would have read that I stated that Israel's legal arguement to a defensible border and the settlement of 400,000 settlers within the West Bank will probably be seen as unrelated and the settlers will lose any legal arguement they have to land. Higgly is trying to twist my responses into suggesting I am arguing the settlements are part of Israel's arguement for defensible borders. I did not state this or suggest this and for Higgly to try twist it is intellectually dishinest.

I will state it again, the 400,000 settlers on the West Bank will be sent back to Israel as part of a compehensive peace deal. Its a moot point. The Israeli government has already stated its desire for safe and defensible borders will NOT be based on keeping those settlements and in fact its putting up defence walls make that clear.

Now I brought up legal opinions raised by two civilians to show that there are respected NEUTRAL legal jurists who have at times defended both Palestinian and Israeli land claims and do not take sides, to show that the law is NOT black and white. Higgly twisted this around and responded to me that one of the legal experts I quoted was wrong because the Geneva convention has been violated.

Once again, Higgly missed the point entirely. The legal opinions I was raising and they raised has nothing to do with whether the Israeli settlements are legal based on defensible borders. No one said they would be legal based on a defensible border international arguement. What these jurists did state and maybe its too difficult for Higgly to grasp, is that there are also other legal doctrines to that cloud title to ownership outside the spectrum of international law. That was the point I tried to make.

I will state this one last time-Higgly does not understand international law and chooses to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with his need to depict Israel as an occupier bad guy.

I choose to discuss the law not engage in name calling and simplistic Israel bad Palestine Good name calling.

Finally I will directly respond to Higgly's comment that the IDF will find a reason to attack Palestinians even if there is no terrorism. It is no different then the kind of comment Higgly has made about Jews in New York or comparing the holocaust to the Ukrainian genocide in ann effort to down play it. He does so to denigrate and insult through name calling.

To name call and simply state the IDF attacks for the sake of attacking and will attack Palestinians even if there is no terrorism summarizes what this debate has come down to-Higgly simply name calling because he is prejudice.

Now Black Dog you don't want me to call him anti-semitic-well when he denigrates the IDF and name calls them, no that is not anti-semitic. However when he makes comments about Jews in New York or brings in the holocaust -then I call him for what he is.

What I would say is Higgly has allowed his prejudice for Jews to colour his feelings for Israel and it has come out in these debates.

Now White Door asked me-why bother with Higgly. Well I will tell you why White Door- I think it is important someone who engages in alleged debates about Israel but uses snide comments and insults about all Jews is exposed. This started when Higgly awhile back made a comment that he was sick and tired of the truth being distorted about the Middle East.

I am sick and tired of people like him using debates about Israel as a cover for his snide comments that are based on prejudice.

I have been very careful when I respond never to insult Palestinians but make it clear it is Hamas and their terrorism I attack. On the other side of the equation we are left with Higgly name calling the IDF and suggesting they attack and will attack Palestinians for no reason.

Higgly has constantly tried to revise what has been happening and ignore Hamas initiates terrorist attacks that involve Palestinian civilians that then get injured when the IDF as is its absolute right under international law to protect its citizens and respond to protect its civilians and prevent further attacks.

At no time did I argue the IDFD should simply attack and kill Palestinians for no reason. More to the point I have told Higgly time and time again to prove with facts when the IDF has attacked Palestinian civilians for no reason at all. He has never responded because he can't.

One last thing. Higgly made a comment he had been to the Middle East and I called him on that and said he had never been there. I will repeat again why I know Higgly has never been to the Middle East. He made a comment when discussing the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank that are Jewish that Israel built a city the size of Guelph and his inference was that it was not as early warning posts against terrorism -simply expansion. That is how he responded to me when I stated the settlers went in there at first as early warning posts.

For Higgly to make his usual sarcastic comments and suggest it is ridiculous to say these settlers were sent in as early warning posts is because he has never been to the West Bank. He has no clue how close the West Bank is to Israel and just how small the land is. If he did he would not make such ridiculous comments that the settlers are the size of Guelph. He has no clue as to the actual size and population density.

He also has no clue of how the settlement posts were set up and the fact that many of these settlers did in fact get shot at and killed by terrorists and also engaged in shoot outs with Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

I have stated time and time again the Israeli settlers should not be there and they are anobstacle to peace. However I wish to make it clear that when those settlers went in, the Israeli government did not stop them not because they wanted to expand-that is the propaganda b.s. myth that Jews want to take over the world starting with the Middle East and then spread. Its b.s. and the kind of b.s.accusing Israel of being expansionist that even the PLO knows is not true given the Oslo accord which gave all of the West Bank back and has and will enable the PLO to argue the Jewish settlers must be sent back.

Higgly should take his prejudice butt to the West Bank and speak to both Palestinians and Israelis and find out who these settlers are and what and why some of them were placed where they were.Its easy for Higgly to suggest its bull to want to use settlement posts as anti-terrorist bufer zones precisely because he has never been there and understands why Israel would have resorted to this unable to continue going in with tanks and ground troops for risk of killing even more civilians. It is a war of attrition and Higgly has no clue as to the extent of terrorist attacks and never will beacause from the safety and comfort of his terrorist free home he can be an expert and make snide comments about Jews in New York, how bad the Ukraine massacre was and how the IDF will look for excuses to kill.

Pathetic.

[jbg]

I have stated time and time again the Israeli settlers should not be there and they are anobstacle to peace. However I wish to make it clear that when those settlers went in, the Israeli government did not stop them not because they wanted to expand-that is the propaganda b.s. myth that Jews want to take over the world starting with the Middle East and then spread. Its b.s. and the kind of b.s.accusing Israel of being expansionist that even the PLO knows is not true given the Oslo accord which gave all of the West Bank back and has and will enable the PLO to argue the Jewish settlers must be sent back.

I generally agree wtih your post. I have problems regarding the West Bank, since the Arabs generally have shown no interest in peace. I believe the Arabs should be given the choice, ultimately, of expulsion or living side-by-side with the Jewish settlers, under Israeli civil rule. Their voting rights should be identical to voting rights in other Arab countries (sorry, one-party votes don't count).

[Black Dog]

I generally agree wtih your post. I have problems regarding the West Bank, since the Arabs generally have shown no interest in peace. I believe the Arabs should be given the choice, ultimately, of expulsion or living side-by-side with the Jewish settlers, under Israeli civil rule. Their voting rights should be identical to voting rights in other Arab countries (sorry, one-party votes don't count).

So your "solution" is to give the Arab residents of the West Bank the choice between subjugation and second class citizenship or expulsion? How fascist.

[GostHacked]

Rue

Now Black Dog you don't want me to call him anti-semitic-well when he denigrates the IDF and name calls them, no that is not anti-semitic. However when he makes comments about Jews in New York or brings in the holocaust -then I call him for what he is.

So mentioning the Holocaust and or Jews in NYC or even saying negative things about the Israeli DEFENCE FORCE (last time I checked that is a military, hard to be anti-semetic against a military) By this reasoning everytime I bash the U.S.A.'s military I should be considered anti-american, but you fail to see the difference in hating the actions of said group as opposed to hating the group outright.

Do you hate Hamas? Hezbollah? Or just hate their actions and what they stand for? I hate Israel and all it stands for, and I am not afriad to voice that fact. I do not believe they have rights to that land regardless of your legality mumbo jumbo (I am not a law expert and won't claim to be) but on the side of moraly right. I think BOTH sides have lost the battle. So I propose taking away everything in Israel/Palestine (and whatever other borders are not 100% defined since Israel was founded) and take all the arms and ammo, and let them have at it fist-to-cuffs. Then the winner will be triumphant. War does not determine who is RIGHT, just who is left.

Now Higgly then tried to bring up another unrelated topic to the international law doctrine of defensible borders and suggest that the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank are in contravention to the Geneva convention.

So having illegal West Bank settlements is ok in your book Rue? How do you really feel about it? The borders for Israel are still as of this time not 100% defined. But they will be in 2010. Israel has said so. So if there are no defined borders then Israeli's can settle anywhere they want? Without reprocussions? Occupation is what it is, plain and simple (or is it simple due to the fact of undefined borders?)

It's not just how we on MLW interperet the law, but it is how Israel and the rest of them interperet the law. We can see it one way, they see it another.

Yes Rue you are right in everything, however the way I see it is .......

Higgly should take his prejudice butt to the West Bank and speak to both Palestinians and Israelis and find out who these settlers are and what and why some of them were placed where they were.

I think we should all go. If everything was paid for today, would any of you get off the couch/computer and go actually find out?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In order to achieve peace the waring parties must stop the violence. This will not happen in the middle east, not now and not ever. So why do you concern yourselves with this conflict since it cannot be resolved? In order to solve this conflict one side must give up, it is not a matter of winning because the conflict itself is unending, it is a matter of surrender. Since neither side is willing to surrender, and since the only victory is absolute the outcome is perpetual violence.

Its none of our business, we can't solve the problem, and to participate inflicts harm on another human being. So why do we do it? Why do we involve ourselves in their dispute when we cannot resolve it but only make it worse?

[Rue]

So mentioning the Holocaust and or Jews in NYC or even saying negative things about the Israeli DEFENCE FORCE (last time I checked that is a military, hard to be anti-semetic against a military) By this reasoning everytime I bash the U.S.A.'s military I should be considered anti-american, but you fail to see the difference in hating the actions of said group as opposed to hating the group outright.

Read what I write. At no time did I call anyone an anti-semite merely for criticizing the IDF. The comments about Jews in New York were deliberately racist and had nothing to do with the issue. The comment comparing the holocaust to the Ukrainian genocide is one of the oldest tactics in the world to denigrate any genocide by comparing it to another. Both comments were gratuitous and had nothing to do with the discussion but were thrown in to take pot shots at Jes in general and not keep the discussion about Israel. That is anti-semitic not to mention pathetic, You want to criticize the IDF and bad mouth Israel and tell the world you hate Israel be my friggin guest. Make comments that insult Jews or tries to downplay the holocaust and you bet I will be all over you like white on rice.

"Do you hate Hamas? Hezbollah? Or just hate their actions and what they stand for? "

If you just took the time to educate yourself as to what Hamas and Hezbollah are, how they are constituted, how they operate, what they stand for, you would realize how silly your question is. I will make you a deal. Go read up on them. Then come back and ask me the question again if you still think you need to.

"I do not believe they have rights to that land regardless of your legality mumbo jumbo"

Well at least we know you refer to complex concepts when debating. Of course I will wait with great anticipation for you to define what you mean when you refer to "that land".

"War does not determine who is RIGHT, just who is left."

O.k. let me try some simple words. If a country is forced to go to war to defend itself, and in that defence creates borders through war, those borders can become legally enshrined. I would explain that further but you said you don't believe in that legal mumbo jumbo so how about I answer it this way-go back and read what the Belfour Declaration was and try find out how TransJordan came about. Just try that. It may be as you say mumbo jumbo but it might answer your question rather then simply making a comment that means very little although I do not doubt you felt if was profound.

"Now Higgly then tried to bring up another unrelated topic to the international law doctrine of defensible borders and suggest that the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank are in contravention to the Geneva convention."

Well I could try explain it to you why Higgly is not legally correct and quoted the wrong convention and is misunderstanding the laws he thinks he is quoting but you already said you are not interested in any legal mumbo jumbo so I guess I shouldn't mention any of that. If you do change your mind and wantg me to explain that legal mumbo jumbo you don't want to hear would be pleased to and I can use easy to understand words if you want.

"So having illegal West Bank settlements is ok in your book Rue?"

Again if you read what I have stated you would not have asked this question. I do not condone any illegal West Bank settlements and I think the settlements in the West Bank are an impediment to peace. That said, I have also stated that the law is not as black and white as to land ownership in the West Bank as Higgly has tried to depict it. I have tried to explain the law but again you said you are not interested in legal mumbo jumbo so I will keep my answer simply to the above as I would not want to confuse you.

"How do you really feel about it? The borders for Israel are still as of this time not 100% defined."

Gosh, someone asking me how I feel about this topic. Lol. It is a good thing you ask because I have never ever on these posts ever attempted to answer that question. Golly Gee where would I start,...o.k. let me give you a hint...somewhere on this forum I may have already responded to what you are asking and I have stated that the 1949-1967 borders of Israel or any other borders of Israel just like the borders for a Palestinian nation other then the Palestininan nation of Jordan which already exists, will be defined in accordance with mutually arrived at agreements and the concept of safe borders. I hope that wasn't too much mumbo jumbo for you to understand.

I fully agree with the Israeli government's already well known position that it will agree to the 1949 to 1967 Israeli borders. How do I let you in on this-that is not in dispute.The remaining issue is in trying to assure the West Bank or Gaza which would become a second Palestinian state will not be used as launching sites for missiles or terrorist attacks against Israel. I hope that was not to mumbo jumbo for you to understand.

" But they will be in 2010. Israel has said so."

Actually no they did not say this. I would be curious what you are reading or quoting from.

"So if there are no defined borders then Israeli's can settle anywhere they want?"

You have not read what I wrote otherwise you would not ask a question I already answered. You have also stated you are not interested in legal mumbo jumbo so how would you like me to answer if you don't want to hear the answer? How about I try it with these real easy to understand words-no one in their right mind on either side of the equation believes anyone whether they are Israeli or Palestinian can settle where ever they want. The fact that you have reduced what you think is Israel's position to this shows me you do not understand Israel's position and are obviously having difficulty grasping dialogue that may be beyond your level of comprehension at this point in time given your reference to legal mumbo jumbo. Again how about I use these simple words- all Israel has ever maintained is that it is left alone from terrorist attacks andis guaranteed peace it has no interest in the West Bank or Gaza or trekking into Lebanon or anywhere else after terrorists.

"Occupation is what it is, plain and simple (or is it simple due to the fact of undefined borders?)"

Well know its not. First of all, you use the word occupation incorrectly because as you said you are not interested in legal mumbo jumbo. Israel does not occupy the Gaza or the West Bank. If you travelled there and made a point of understanding what is actually there and what the IDF actually does you would know that. More to the point, and again let me try use simple words for you, you can't occupy a stateless area of land. You can only occupy land that is already sovereign. How about I use these simple words. Jordan did not occupy but they did ANNEX the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. That means they administered the area. In 1967 the Israeli government pursuant to a war, sent in a military governor but the IDF in fact only is situated in specific zones. The vast majority of the West Bank is not occupied by the IDF. It in fact uses road-blocks and patrols but stays away from most Palestinian communities. It does respond when a terrorist attack happens or it has received intelligence and goes in to prevent a terrorist attack from happening but these are specific missions. I hope that wasn't too much legal mumbo jumbo for you.

"It's not just how we on MLW interperet the law, but it is how Israel and the rest of them interperet the law. We can see it one way, they see it another."

Not sure what you are getting at but as I stated from the get go, there is no right or wrong, just competing or conflicting interests, and this is why, rational, moderate people search for non violent solutions that allow both sides to peacefully co-exist and do not try depict this as a good guy and bad guy just two tormented peoples looking for a way out.

"Yes Rue you are right in everything, however the way I see it is ......."

Well thanks but I am a Jew so in Higgly's mind I must live in New York and exaggerate the importance of the Holocaust and automatically be bias against Palestinians -how about you, do you think I am involved in conspiracies to take over the world and maintain our grip on Hollywood and the banks? Do you think I hate Palestinians because I despise terrorism. Do you think I hate Palestinians because I despise Hamas and Hezbollah using them as shields and pawns? Do you think I hate Palestinians because I spent many years with moderate Palestinians and Israelis working on peaceful dialogue? I will give you a hint-I odn't control any banks, Hollywood or have ever engaged in world conspiracies. I don't even hate Mel Gibson although I did think his last movie to me insulted Christianity and portrayed it in a way that I do not feel did justice to what the Christian religion is about. I think it forcused too much on one portion of the entire tale and that portion was distorted and taken out of context much like the Middle East conflict. I think like the Middle East conflict, the movie was done in a way that tried to make things black and white and easy to understand and portray a good and a bad and good people and bad people. I think such concepts probably work well with people like you who are not comfortable with mumbo jumbo but for people like me need to be challenged.

"Higgly should take his prejudice butt to the West Bank and speak to both Palestinians and Israelis and find out who these settlers are and what and why some of them were placed where they were." I think we should all go. If everything was paid for today, would any of you get off the couch/computer and go actually find out?

"

Do us all a favour. Stay home.

[Black Dog]

Now Black Dog you don't want me to call him anti-semitic-well when he denigrates the IDF and name calls them, no that is not anti-semitic. However when he makes comments about Jews in New York or brings in the holocaust -then I call him for what he is.

What I would say is Higgly has allowed his prejudice for Jews to colour his feelings for Israel and it has come out in these debates.

Point of clarification, Rue: White Doors said Higgly was anti-semitic for a dig th elatte rmade at the IDF. I disagreed on that particular point. I would agree that Higgly has definitely pushed the envelope in some other ways (ie. the New York comment).

Cheers.

[Rue]

Now Black Dog you don't want me to call him anti-semitic-well when he denigrates the IDF and name calls them, no that is not anti-semitic. However when he makes comments about Jews in New York or brings in the holocaust -then I call him for what he is.

What I would say is Higgly has allowed his prejudice for Jews to colour his feelings for Israel and it has come out in these debates.

Point of clarification, Rue: White Doors said Higgly was anti-semitic for a dig th elatte rmade at the IDF. I disagreed on that particular point. I would agree that Higgly has definitely pushed the envelope in some other ways (ie. the New York comment).

Cheers.

Thanks B-dog.

I am also the first to defend Higgly's right to criticize Israel and and the IDF just as I respect your views. I respect Higgly's views otherwise I would not debate him so much. It means a lot to me he debates me and does his best to present the other side. If I didn't respect him, I wouldn't debate so much.

I will also say this. I found some of his comments unfair but I am the first to admit I come across as a sanctimonious twat when I am debating because I get really caught up in this stuff too. I am no angel and anm a gigantic wad of righteousness at times. Sometimes we all make comments in heat of the moment. I am full of them. I hope people understand when I write, I respect their views very much and I juste njoy debating so much I get intense and sometimes sound like a sanctimonious twit but it is meant as respect. I really enjoy the opportunity to debate on this forum. Sometimes I forget I monopolize too much in the responses and I apologize its just I am really enjoying myself.

There are many sides to all debates and issues. I have no monopolies on what is the right arguement and I thank my luck stars we live in a country where we can have such forums and debate each other but don't have to go around killing each other over it.

Unless of course it has to do with Paris Hilton. Insult her and you deal with me.

(I was joking for heaven's sake)

[Higgly]

I would agree that Higgly has definitely pushed the envelope in some other ways (ie. the New York comment).

That comment was made in response to a comment by ... I forget who ... that the Palestinians already had a home, and that it is called Jordan. I make no apology for the New York comment, nor do I withdraw it. You talk like this, you get it back.

With respect to pushing the envelope, I have said little that is not in well-reviewed published works, many of them written by Israeli Jews.

My central thesis is that Israel has to start taking responsibility for the humanitarian disaster resulting from its creation and the way it is continually warping the politics of the Middle East. It has to understand that repression is not working and that it is not going to get away with the theft of Palestine.

The release of the report by the US Committee on Iraq has been instructive. This committee, and many others, including Tony Blair, have said that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a major roadblock to peace in the Middle East. Not surprisingly, Ehud Olmert did what Israeli governments have always done.... deny, deny, deny.

Unfortunately, that idiot Bush will probably not take the advice but listen instead to the Pentagon which always has one response to every issue: WAR WAR WAR. Look forward to an escalation in Iraq. Deja Vietnam all over again.

[Higgly]

What I would say is Higgly has allowed his prejudice for Jews to colour his feelings for Israel and it has come out in these debates.

Amazing. I have argued historical fact. With respect to a comparison of the Holocaust with the Ukrainian slaughter, my point is this: the Holocaust is used again and again to justify Israel's position on just about everything. The twentieth century has many such events. We need to start looking past the Holocaust when we try to find a resolution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. When Jews bring up the Holocaust, Arabs are clearly not impressed, whether you like it or not. Show me evidence of my bias against Jews, Black Dog.

I am also the first to defend Higgly's right to criticize Israel and and the IDF just as I respect your views. I respect Higgly's views otherwise I would not debate him so much. It means a lot to me he debates me and does his best to present the other side. If I didn't respect him, I wouldn't debate so much.

Yes, I respect you as well, Rue, and I hope you understand that I am arguing for what I believe is justice.

[Rue]

"That comment was made in response to a comment by ... I forget who ... that the Palestinians already had a home, and that it is called Jordan. I make no apology for the New York comment, nor do I withdraw it. You talk like this, you get it back."

It is unfortunate you are not gracious enough to admit when you step over the line.

My comment was that TransJordan was created on 78% to 82% of Palestine and is population was Palestinian and it is in fact a Palestinian nation. That Sir is a fact. It is not derogatory and the context it was raised was to point out that the Palestinian nation we are now talking about is in fact a second one.

Your attempt now to state New York is to Jews what Jordan is to Palestinians is of course racist and now your latest response is unfortunate. You are well aware New York state was never created by the British specifically as a state for Jews. You know damn well New York State is not a sovereign Jewish state that excludes Muslims from citizenship.

The fact that you continue to refuse to differentiate between New York state and the Jews who live in it with Palestinians who are now Jordanian citizens, is dishonest and you know it.

Jews in New York and the fact that many live there or in Miami has nothing to do with what we were discussing. It is not germaine because it is not related to the thesis that Palestinians were displaced and do not have a nation. They do, its called Jordan. New York is not a Jewish state. You make the slur only because lots of Jews live there. You make the slur because Mr. Spitzer is a Jew. It has nothing to do with Israel, Palestinian citizenship or the conflicting needs for Palestinian Muslim and Jewish states in Israel and you know it.

The fact that you wrote back and contine to try twist these two different issues as being relevant does not cover up or justify your slur.

Be a man and either apologize or refrain from slurring Jews when you discuss Israel. Continue with your pathetic comments and you bet I will call you on them.

More to the point the Palestinians in Jordan to this day wrestle with their identity and you know it. There are thousands of speeches from the PLO describing Jordan as a Palestinian state.

The fact is Transjordan was created by the British by taking 82% of Palestinian land and creating a nation of Palestinian Muslims. That Sir is a fact. It is a fact they allowed huge numbers of Muslims to immigrate to TransJordan prior to its creation but refused to allow Jews in. It is a fact TransJordan excluded all Jews from citizenship.

You Sir have been caught red handed letting your ignorance as to Jews and the Palestinian issue which is susinct become blurred.

I challenge you to take one thing I said and show how it degrades Muslims as you have Jews. The historic issues I raised at no time insult Palestinians for being Muslim and you know it.

Unless Sir you are a Palestinian with emotional attachment to this issue, you have no excuses.

[Higgly]

"That comment was made in response to a comment by ... I forget who ... that the Palestinians already had a home, and that it is called Jordan. I make no apology for the New York comment, nor do I withdraw it. You talk like this, you get it back."

It is unfortunate you are not gracious enough to admit when you step over the line.

My comment was that TransJordan was created on 78% to 82% of Palestine and is population was Palestinian and it is in fact a Palestinian nation. That Sir is a fact. It is not derogatory and the context it was raised was to point out that the Palestinian nation we are now talking about is in fact a second one.

Nonsense. Palestine is the region between the Jordan River and the sea. Palestinians are Arabs who live in that region. The Palestinian Arabs now living in Jordan were driven out of Palestine. They are not in Jordan because they wish to be there but because Israel has shut them out of their land.

Your attempt now to state New York is to Jews what Jordan is to Palestinians is of course racist and now your latest response is unfortunate. You are well aware New York state was never created by the British specifically as a state for Jews. You know damn well New York State is not a sovereign Jewish state that excludes Muslims from citizenship.

The Balfour declaration said that the Jews shall have a home in Palestine, not that all of Palestine would be given to the Jews. In fact it said that this should be done without adversely effecting the Arabs already living there - clearly a condition that has been severely violated. You are conveniently mis-interpreting it to suit your own ends just as you are distorting my New York comments and magnifying it to suit your own purposes. You are reaching, Rue. You have been trying to label me as an anti-semite ever since I posted my Israeli Mythinformation thread which contained information straight out of books by Israeli Jewish authors.

The fact that you continue to refuse to differentiate between New York state and the Jews who live in it with Palestinians who are now Jordanian citizens, is dishonest and you know it.

Jews in New York and the fact that many live there or in Miami has nothing to do with what we were discussing. It is not germaine because it is not related to the thesis that Palestinians were displaced and do not have a nation. They do, its called Jordan. New York is not a Jewish state. You make the slur only because lots of Jews live there. You make the slur because Mr. Spitzer is a Jew. It has nothing to do with Israel, Palestinian citizenship or the conflicting needs for Palestinian Muslim and Jewish states in Israel and you know it.

The fact that you wrote back and contine to try twist these two different issues as being relevant does not cover up or justify your slur.

More stuff and nonsense. I used the New York quote to show by comparison how ridiculous your comments about Palestinians belonging in Jordan are. Your attempt to make it into a racist slur shows desperation.

Be a man and either apologize or refrain from slurring Jews when you discuss Israel. Continue with your pathetic comments and you bet I will call you on them.

Yawn.

More to the point the Palestinians in Jordan to this day wrestle with their identity and you know it. There are thousands of speeches from the PLO describing Jordan as a Palestinian state.

Really. Was that when Arafat was trying to engineer a coup against the Hashemite King?

The fact is Transjordan was created by the British by taking 82% of Palestinian land and creating a nation of Palestinian Muslims. That Sir is a fact. It is a fact they allowed huge numbers of Muslims to immigrate to TransJordan prior to its creation but refused to allow Jews in. It is a fact TransJordan excluded all Jews from citizenship.

More geographic mythinformation. Rue just about every argument I have seen you present here has been specious in one way or another.

You Sir have been caught red handed letting your ignorance as to Jews and the Palestinian issue which is susinct become blurred.

I challenge you to take one thing I said and show how it degrades Muslims as you have Jews. The historic issues I raised at no time insult Palestinians for being Muslim and you know it.

Unless Sir you are a Palestinian with emotional attachment to this issue, you have no excuses.

Well thanks for calling me Sir. Your continual refusal to recognize the crimes that Israel continually commits against the Palestinians degrades them considerably. You are a denier, and it is these constant denials by Israel's supporters that does tremendous harm to these people. As for your final sentence Rue, nobody made you the gatekeeper for entry into this debate. This issue has had the entire Middrle East in flames for decades and we all have a right to express our opinion. That's why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects free speech, Rue, and your objections to my participation on grounds of race, or in fact on any other grounds, will do you no good.

[Higgly]

Black Dog, I am still waiting for you to justify your remark that I am prejudiced against Jews.

[Frenchy Habash]

"That comment was made in response to a comment by ... I forget who ... that the Palestinians already had a home, and that it is called Jordan. I make no apology for the New York comment, nor do I withdraw it. You talk like this, you get it back."

It is unfortunate you are not gracious enough to admit when you step over the line.

Not sure if either of you realizes that this very same comment (those who suggest Palestinians should move to Jordan might well suggest that Israelis move to New York) was made by Naom Chomsky in his book "Rogue States".

Chomsky is a Jew.

[White Doors]

"That comment was made in response to a comment by ... I forget who ... that the Palestinians already had a home, and that it is called Jordan. I make no apology for the New York comment, nor do I withdraw it. You talk like this, you get it back."

It is unfortunate you are not gracious enough to admit when you step over the line.

Not sure if either of you realizes that this very same comment (those who suggest Palestinians should move to Jordan might well suggest that Israelis move to New York) was made by Noam Chomsky in his book "Rogue States".

Chomsky is a Jew.

And your point is?

[Frenchy Habash]

I saw a post where this guy Rue declares that the poster (Higgly) is an enemy of the Jewish people for his post.

Does that help?

[Frenchy Habash]

More to the point the Palestinians in Jordan to this day wrestle with their identity and you know it. There are thousands of speeches from the PLO describing Jordan as a Palestinian state.

I don't know where this is coming from, but I know a Palestinian family living in Amman and I can tell you for a fact that the only thing they talk about is going back to their farm in Jaffa.

[jbg]

More to the point the Palestinians in Jordan to this day wrestle with their identity and you know it. There are thousands of speeches from the PLO describing Jordan as a Palestinian state.

I don't know where this is coming from, but I know a Palestinian family living in Amman and I can tell you for a fact that the only thing they talk about is going back to their farm in Jaffa.

Utterly unrealistic, as they well know. Their family fled, it's "goodbye".

[jbg]

Not sure if either of you realizes that this very same comment (those who suggest Palestinians should move to Jordan might well suggest that Israelis move to New York) was made by Naom Chomsky in his book "Rogue States".

Chomsky is a Jew.

While a Jew he is quite a bitter enemy of his own people. As an American he is free to be a traitor to the Jewish people. Unlike the Muslims, we do not kill our disloyal members.

[Wilber]

Do you hate Hamas? Hezbollah? Or just hate their actions and what they stand for? I hate Israel and all it stands for, and I am not afriad to voice that fact. I do not believe they have rights to that land regardless of your legality mumbo jumbo (I am not a law expert and won't claim to be) but on the side of moraly right. I think BOTH sides have lost the battle. So I propose taking away everything in Israel/Palestine (and whatever other borders are not 100% defined since Israel was founded) and take all the arms and ammo, and let them have at it fist-to-cuffs. Then the winner will be triumphant. War does not determine who is RIGHT, just who is left.

If it was just between the Jews and the Palestinians it would have been settled years ago but it has never been just about the Jews and the Palestinians. There has always been dozens of countries and groups trying to exploit the situation to their own benefit. It's a tool for them, not a problem to be solved.

[Rue]

If it was just between the Jews and the Palestinians it would have been settled years ago but it has never been just about the Jews and the Palestinians. There has always been dozens of countries and groups trying to exploit the situation to their own benefit. It's a tool for them, not a problem to be solved.

Funny but I think you are the first poster I ever read to say the above. Finally!