Rue

Quaint as hell but for me, dead on.

You see Scott, you are an eloquent man when you aren't chasing down bearded Koranic quoting fundamentalists. Wonderful words. You are starting to sound like a Bentham Liberal. Be careful. Next thing you know you will be driving a hybrid and voting for the Green Party.

Of course. Theory and practical reality are unfortunately not nec. the same thing. But I have to be idealistic if for no other reason to entice Buffy into going into a delicatessen. Higgly probably already has but we still have to work on explaining to him to have a cherry coke with the pastrami not a Guiness. These things take time JBG. I hope you live to see it in your time.

I have always acknowledged that, always. There is a huge distinction between the Palestinians or Arabs or what-ever you want to call the people who were present there than the Arabs who came into the area because of the British policies. I have always contended they have the same rights as Jews to self-determination and I can appreciate how they would feel Jordan is not their true Palestinian state but simply something Britain created and flooded with non Palestinians even though technically Jordan is situated on 80% of Palestine and has a law of return for all Palestinians. The only actual difference we have which is a minor but most significant one is that I do not see the creation of the Israeli state as the reason for plight of Palestinians. I do believe it is used as an excuse and it certainly has a cause and effect relationship but where we differ is I place the blame not even on the French or English and their manipulation and meddling but on the Arab League which could have chosen to support both Israeli and Palestinian states but deliberately chose not to forcing the war and then deliberately using Palestinians as pawns by placing them in camps. I do not doubt there are some policies Israel has pursued that have exasperated certain situations-Israelis openly admit that. But what I am saying is the Arab League has never lived up to its moral responsibility for placing Palestinians in camps and then forcing Israel's had by expelling 900,000 Jews from Arab League nations obliging 700 thou or so to flee to Israel making any Palestinian repatriation at that point impossible. This is why I believe Palestinians should have a second state in The West Bank. I appreciate their not feeling Jordan is their country. It doesn't change the fact though that all of this was avoidable. King Faisal I really believe could have been a positive unifying force living side by side a Jewish state had he been allowed. The notion of all Arabs hating Jews is just not true. It of course took on its tone of today in my opinion directly because of Nazis being able to manipulate and implement and institutionalize their agenda using them again as pawns. To me I explain these tyranical regimes in Iraq, Syria, Egypt as being the creation of Nazi SS, Gestapo and politicians who travelled there leading up to,during and after the second world war. I also believe Chirchill did not act honourably in the Middle East and he admitted as much in his diaries and in candid interviews. I also from a historic perspective hold the view Israel would not exist had it not been for what the Arab League did, the British did, in a negative sense and in a positive sense because of Elanor Roosevelt. Her role in helping create Israel is a testament to over 2 years of intense non stop lobbying. This was no ordinary woman. This was a tough as nails idealist and her vision and the one I suggest to you real Zionists pursued did not dream of traumatizing Palestinians. This was not a vision contrary to what you may think of wanting to hurt Palestinians. I do not condone certain things Ben Gurion did but I do know why he would have the persepective he did on some of them. I do not judge him the same way I do not Judge Faisal or Weitzman. I do save my venom on the Zionist side for the Stern Gang. I have never tried to justify certain incidents they engaged in by saying they were desperate victims of the holocaust. It still does not excuse the violence. Terrorists on both sides are equally as wrong. I still believe if you can find a way to neutralize terrorism, peaceful coexistence is possible. No one said the IRA could be disarmed and yet they chose to disarm. How you could do that in the Middle East I do not know. And if you are interested by personal vision of Israel would not have been a military state under seige it would have been a larger version of the Vatican. I personally do not think what Mr. Abbas is trying to do is a joke or just an act like Arafat. I just don't know how much real power he has to do anything. I also think the current Israeli PM is a very weak man not capable of the kind of risk taking Rabin or others engaged in. He is a classic bureaucrat, someone who has learned to thrive in environments of indecision by playing the sides. I may be way to the left of Netanyanhu but I would even say him on the right side would be more likely to get something done then this current PM precisely because whether an Israeli is to the right or left on the spectrum, the ones who get things done are risk takers. I do believe King Abdullah in Jordan has taken many risks not obvious to the public in trying to assist the peace process. I would personally prefer a Colin Powell to a Tony Blair if I was going to send someone in everyone could trust to mediate. I wish they could call on the same people who helped in Northern Ireland as well. We need neutral non judgemental people to help mediate instead of arms dealers with a vested interest in prolonging conflicts.

by the way Buffy, does it suprise you Israel would have sympathy for the Kurds? They are persecuted in Syria, a common enemy and were persecuted in Iraq and Hussein, a common enemy and they were gassed en masse, something that of course would have deep psychic meaning to Israelis. Israel identifies Kurds as people victimized by the Muslim world so they would of course identity with them. Its only natural. They also have an alliance with Turkey, which it sees as one of the few Muslim countries that support its existence in that area of the world. So yes politics makes strange bed-fellows, it always has. I think if you look carefully, Israeli support of Kurds is directed towards supporting them in Lebanon and Syria or with charitable efforts within Iraq. Israel is not stupid enough to train or have anything to do with Kurd seperatists seeking to attack its allie Turkey. Its interesting though. If they didn't support the Kurds you would probably call them hip o. krits as well.

The thing is I can guarantee if you met me I would have you locked under the spell of my Zionist eyes within minutes. Thaen and I would hold the door for you, charm you without drooling on you, and then seduce you in to to change your name to Golda and dying your hair dark brown from your blonde do.

Good question. I do believe myself, (totally subjective) Faisal would have stuck to his word and created an Arab Kingdom next door to a Jewish one with peaceful intentions had the British and French not made a fool of him and cause him to lose face. Also interesting to note that the tone of arrogance used by both Weitzman and Faisal in reference to the Arab peoples living in the corridor best described as today's Israel and Jordan and the South of Syria and Lebanon was virtually identical. When you remove the comments of contempt or arrogance out of their historic context and read into them a political agenda you could say they were both anti-Palestinian but I think what was more accurately happening was both Feisal and Weitzman wanted to create nation states and looked down upon the complacency of the Palestinians-it was actually a contempt for their apolitical nature. Faisal was a very impatient and assertive man with great visions for his people. Weitzman was typical of those coming out of East Europea a driven man dogged by existential anxiety and spiritual depression-so of course these Palestinians would have seemed complacent to the two of them-two restless creative over-achieving souls fueled by their desire to lead their peoples to greatness. In fact these Palestinians or Arab peoples what-ever you want to call them, scattered across this area, were dirt poor, had no formal education, and were basically used as cheap labour by absentee landlords. The concept of a nation state would be completely alien to the ambigous world they lived in where they had no rights at all and just drifted and subsisted. A border would have been an absurdity to them. A government was simply the system that drafted them into armies or took the little goods they had away for some distant figure. They in fact symbolized everything Faisal and Weitzman hated about themselves-stateless, and seemingly trapped in a no man's land without any control of their destiny. Of course both men would have expressed resentment towards this. It was the very part of their predicaments they were trying to remedy. Taken out of proper context it would seem like unjustifiable hatred. Taken in the context of these two and the worlds they were born into, it would symbolize everything they hated and were trying to change and this is why on the one hand you can find certain quotes that sound hateful, but then you can also find quotes from both men referring to these itinerant people in a completely different way as well.

Jan. 3, 1919, Emir Faisal and ChaimWeitzman signed a treaty as part of the Peace Conference of 1919. Higgly of course believes Mr. Weitzman was someone who hated Palestinians. The fact is both Weitzman and Faisal were quoted as expressing negative sentiments of the Palestinian Arabs at that time. no doubt about it. The agreement envisioned immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while at the same time protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers. and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control. The actual boundaries between an Arab State and a Jewish state were to be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference. The parties also agreed to honour the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine, i.e., the geographic area of what is today Israel, the West Bank and Jordan. Under this agreement disputes as to the borders would be submitted to the British Government for arbitration. Weizmann signed the agreement on behalf of the Zionist Organization representing the intended Jewish state , and Faisal signed on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz. Faisal however qualfiied his acceptance of the above agreement with the following condition: "Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever." However as a result of the 1919 Paris peace conferemce, Faisal was NOT given the Arab state he envisioned precisely because as I stated earlier the British and French had struck their own Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence, and had absolutely no intention of ever letting the Arab and Jewish states to be formed. 2 weeks before the above agreement was signed Faisal was sounding very positive and stated; "The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realization of its aspirations. Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas." Those were not of course the words of the stereotype anti-Jewish Arab. Not at all. as I said before in response to Higgly on many instances, Jews and Arabs were planning to create two kingdoms but the French and British interceded deliberately to prevent this from happening and deliberately turned the Arabs against the Jews in a classic divide and conquer move. Faisal was in fact forefully expelled from Syria by the French and the british carved him out the artificial colony puppet called the Kingdom of Iraq, and at the same time illegally seized 85% of Palestine and creeated Trans Jordan for Faisal's brother, Abdullah while the French carved out Lebanon and Syria and the Jews were left with ZERO. So in fact the book Higgly would have you believe backs up his contentions as to Israel being bad bad bad and the reason they invaded Lebanon is of course baseless. As for the sinister Zionists and Arabs, I will say it again. They were both indigenous tribes to the Middle East and the French and British deliberately turned the Muslims on the Jews as part of a divide and conquer tactic to justify their presence. The British never had any intention of honouring or assisting Jews obtain any Jewish homeland. They said one thing to the Jews, another to the Arabs, and in fact pursued a third agenda with the French. The current problems with Lebanon are the same problems we have seen evertywhere in the world where the British and the French artificially imposed colonies-blaming it on Zionists as Higgly likes to do is absurd. He is blaming one of the two tribes victimized by the colonialists. Its why when I define the Middle East I do not define either the Muslims or Jews, Israelis, Arabs or Palestinians as bad or good, just two people pitted against one another by colonialists for deliberate political reasons and then further exasperated when Nazi Germany took over Syria and ran the Baath Parties of Syria and Iraq and made its way into the Egyptian government. The secret police in Syria and Egypt were created by Nazis, i.e., SS and Gestapo officers. The goose stepping and uniforms in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon come from their Nazi trainers. The Hitler mustache is still a popular one in many parts of the Middle East.

Anyone who goes to the inter-net site I quoted can find your information verbatum. Your trying to suggest you got from Margaret MacMillan's book is interesting considering you seem to have selectively ignored everything else in her book which leads me to believe you never read it otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it to me because you would know I could take the book and remove numerous quotes from it suggesting your version of history makes no sense. In fact simply quoting the footnotes from the web-site you went to or a text I mentioned won't do it with me Higgly. If I thought for one minute you were reading these history texts in full as opposed to simply finding them as foot notes I would take your comments a lot more seriously. The fact you won't respond to the historic issues you try pass off as absolute and defend them does not of course surprise me. I would suggest anyone taking either text you have referenced and taking to the time to read them in full would see your comments are not only inaccurate but misleading and grossly over-simplifying in fact far more complex cause and effect events to suit your usual political agenda-Israel bad everything is Israel's fault. See the problem for you Higgly is that some of us do read more then inter-net sites and are capable of calling you out and that is precisely why you do what you do when you are challenged.

I will try explain it for you so there is no misunderstanding. I do not use reasoning that would suggest a "girl " meant secretly yes when she gets raped. Why? Because if you did follow what I was saying, then if you followed the reasoning, it would hold even if a young woman gave a mixed signal or acted conflicted, it does not for one second justify someone engaging in violence or forcing themselves on her. Your analogy suggests Keng is akin to a rape victim who was misunderstood. A person who sends mixed signals can do so for many reasons and I would suggest you consider the context and implications of each situation and not try lump all people who send mixed signals as being powerless. That makes no sense. Look at Keng's words and ask yourself do his mixed signals ask people to accept him as you are suggesting they do by equating him to a confused woman who gets raped? Do you really think his words seek love from you? Do you think the words he uses are no different then someone seeking affection? Sorry I do not. More importantly, the young woman who sends off her conflicting signals does have responsibility for her actions just not the rape itself. Your analogy suggests Keng is a victim who does not need to take responsibility for his actions. What nonsense. In the case of the woman whose mixed signals get her raped-she was victimizing no one and the consequence she must take control of is the feelings of being judgemental of herself after the rape and learning not to blame herself. In the case of Keng, the mixed signals do not victimize himself in any way-in fact they make him feel pretty good about himself and unlike the woman they weren't sent to get affection they were sent to incite hatred. In his exercise he feels actualized by degrading others. In the case of the young woman, unlike Keng, she desperately sought the affirmation of others-she did not set out to actualize herself based on a negative experience against others but a positive one-that Sir is the huge difference and why your analogy to me just does not hold. So you tell me. Do the generalizations he engages in appear to you the same kind of conflicted messages a young woman might send out saying she wants to be accepted or needed or loved? Do you really believe Keng is seeking affection and is an innocent? Is that your analogy? I state again the choice of words he uses are deliberate and repeat a pattern of describing gay people as demons so he can then justify his hatred for them. If they are demons, then of course he can proclaim God and Jesus approve of his hatred and negative generalizations. So I say again, if you, me, or anyone makes a point of pointing our finger at anyone and saying they are demons and since they are demons it is acceptable we hate them and assign even more negative characteristics on to them, then I contend we all have the right to and should ask why. We have the right to ask the person pointing the finger of hatred what gives him that right and why he does it. We have the right to look at the choice of words he uses as weapons particularly the words he used to suggest what is wrong with society is that people do not repress their sexual feelings. Where do you think his concept that one needs to repress sexual desires comes from? Of course it begins within him. So does the vision he repeats of gays celebrating sex with children and his need to associate homo-sexuality with pedophilia. Make such statements people have the right to say-are you talking about yourself or others? Tell me, do you think it is rational to suggest what is wrong with people is that they won't repress who they are? You think that sounds like words that would emanate from someone feeling at ease with himself or do you think it sounds like the words of someone who is frightened or feeling threatened? Do you think I am the only one who asks why he is so frightened of gays? You think for most of us when we hear someone be so openly condemning of a group we can't decipher its because he is afraid of that group? Tell me, do you think fear and hatred are not attached or do you see them as completely distinct? Read his words. I did not write them, he did and I have a right to ask where they originate. I ask because for me I do not accept such hatred. If I did I would simply accept the holocaust as normal or people hating othes as acceptable. Sorry it annoys you but I can't. For me personally the challenge is to confront hatred head on and defuse it and pop its bubble by asking questions. The Devil to me is nothing more then the symbol we use for being afraid to face something that bothers us and resolve it. You sit in the chair I have for so long and I admit you do see things keep repeating their themes after awhile-for example, you soon notice the person across from you who says he hates gays may be telling you he hasn't come to terms with sexual feelings inside himself with people of the same sex. See for me I do not see humans as dettached from one another-I see each and every feeling they have and each and every perception they have intricately linked in space and time to others both in consequence, effect and in cause. I personally do not believe our perceptions of others simply happen. I believe there is a complicated series of cause and effects leading up to the perception that flows from our interactions with those around us and how we deal with our own feelings. Am I trying to psycho-analyze him-no- I do no more then what he does when he assigns motives to all gays. Fair is far. He can't assign motive to others without expecting it in return during debate. Who he is and what his real motives are I do not know and would not want to know. My comments are limited to the implications of his words. What I am saying though is, if he wishes to describe others as immoral and needing to repress themselves he makes it evident to some of us he may really be talking about himself and his struggles to repress who he is. Hate I would contend begins and ends within us as individuals. A person who is at peace with himself I would contend has no need to project negative feelings outwards. I would contend a peaceful soul would not engage in such exercises and if you think that is unfair to say-that's fine but understand in my world, a peaceful soul has no need to hate gay people or anyone else let alone think he is in the position to tell others what is right or wrong. You want to assign motive to me. Be my guest. I would say it is fair to say I engage in debate because part of me needs to prove to myself I am capable of asserting myself. Fair is fair. You could say I am insecure otherwise I would not bother to debate I would just remain completely silent. That is true. I am insecure. People like Keng make me anxious and I prefer to deal with the source of my anxiety head on. Maybe one day I will be so enlightened I will not. I hope so. For now though I debate. I do not presume however to tell Keng how he should think or feel as he does with gays and everyone else. I could care less in fact. What I do care about however is when he or anyone else tries to take his Bible and use it as a weapon or tool to molest others. I also find it ironic someone so against gays is so preoccupied forcing the Bible up peoples' butts. IAt least proctologists have a good reason to do what they do.

I respect your comment Cyber and why you said it and in a way admire you for saying it. I have a genuine difference of opinion on it that's all. I actually respect your intentions. They are honourable.

Actually its not original at all, its quite repetitive because with due respect Jeffriah I do not say it to be self-righteous but to be dead on serious when I see such comments presented in the context they are. They are my personal opinion just as the poster has his about gays. They are repetitive because the exercise of gay bashing is not original and most times the person spewing it uses the same words and exhibits the same anxiety about gay sex or any kind of sexual feelings. I respond to the words and then engage in the exact same exercise Keng does to gays to him deliberately. I doubt he gets it but do you? Do you really think this is a debate about someone's religious beliefs? I never thought that for a moment and that is why I said what I said if for no other reason I believe gay people should be supported by straight people against such attacks. You demonize gays where does it end? I mean this is the exact same crap that was used against Jews by Christians in Europe for centuries slurring us all for killing Jesus and being evil and engaging in social conspiracies and it is the exact same cognitive process dominant groups have used to persecute and massacre minority groups for millenium-the name of the targeted group for hatred may change but the tactics remain very much the same and so my comments, usually the same. There is nothing creative about hating. Its stunted, one dimensional, rigid, inflexible,trite and oh so predictable...yah like me. Lol.

I can't help but think you are rght. What makes it tricky though as you probably know, is that in the United States, unlike Canada, criminal law is decided by the State not the federal government because of its division of federal and state powers. So to get a criminal deported, once he's been convicted of a murder and is facing capital punishment in a state that administers it, would require you to get the Governor of the state to agree. That just won't happen given the politicsl optics. We actually do have reciprocity agreements where we send convicted felons back to their state or province of residence but its not used with major crimes such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, terrorism, kidnapping or crimes of serious violence. Its often used when a prisoner is dying and wants to be closer to his family or has the kind of sentence where they want to release him into a treatment program before release and believe he is not a violent criminal and has a low likelihood of repeating the crime. The problem say when someone murders someone in a state that believes in capital punishment is that Canada has no legal rights as to exercising sovereignty over that criminal. They can ask-but that is all they can do. Its a difficult issue. I am just not sure what redeeming quality a Paul Bernardo has and what point there is having him sit in a tiny cell watching t.v. for the rest of his life. Ideally I wish all murderers were forced to work the rest of their lives sending the money they make to charities and/or the loved ones of the deceased, i.e., their children. So maybe you are dead on. Maybe if we showed we would take the murderer and force him to work instead of letting him go or letting him sit and watch t.v., we might get a different reaction. I really do think it gets down to simple practical considerations such as the one you raised at the end of the day which have to be considered.

An example of how the theory Higgly is assuming is the truth is used can be found at http://www.nsm88.org/articles/litani_river.html the site of the American Nazi party. Tanya Reinhart is another "journalist" who repeatedly refers to this theory. It works like this; David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the state of Israel, is suppossed to have believed that Israel's borders should have been the Jordan river in the east, the Suez canal and Sharm el-Sheikh in the south-west and south, and the Litani river (20 miles inside Lebanon) in the north. The book, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, written by Avi Shlaim is then used as the textual reference source for this and in his book he says Ben-Gurion had a "fantastic plan" which he claims intended to annex southern Lebanon and turn the rest of the country into a Maronite Christian state. According to Shlaim, it was in 1956 Ben Gurion then told this scheme to the British and French at "secret talks" in Sèvres, the same talks where all 3 countries prepared the Suez invasion. Accoprding to Shalim, Ben Gurion's chief of staff, Moshe Dayan, would sponsor a Lebanese officer who would then "declare himself the saviour of the Maronite population", then "enter Lebanon, occupy the necessary territory, and create a Christian regime that would then ally itself with Israel. Then the territory from the Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel, and everything will fall into place." In addition to these alleged secret conversations now revealed, alleged quotes from Ben Gurion in 1918 and World Zionist Org after World War 1 are used to show Ben Gurion and the Zionists were scheming this since way back when. What in fact has happened is someone comes up with an alleged conspiracy and they write it in a book. Then anyone who has an anti-Zionist agenda takes the theory and begins repeating it over and over as if it is absolute. People like Higgly claim its well known because he believes since he sees it being repeated by many people with the same opinion as he has on Israel on the inter-net it must be legitimate since its repeated so many times. "Well known" becomes in the context Higgly uses it a euphenism for "it must be legitimate". Well the fact that something is repeated many times by many people does not necessarily make it legitimate. You have to go back to the original person who started the theory and ask, how and where did ge get his information to base such conclusions. So while you can see web-sites claiming it comes from declassified information, uh no, in reality it doesn't it comes from one person's theory being circulated. So is the theory true? The problem is the theory is based on an alleged conversation and NOTHING in writing. The alleged "written documents" are not from the government, they are alleged quotes Ben Gurion said. The problem is when you start reading the quotes they can be taken from 1918, 1920, 1948 and in the 1930's but no one quote says anything similiar to the other quotes and requires we read in context to what Ben Gurion said or see what we want to see in the words he has allegedly said. Or when you see it being presented as fact in Encyclopedia of the Palestininan Problem http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter30_4of4.htm and start tracing the foot-notes to reference where it comes from, it leads to a dead-end, i.e., no initial source. A popular version of the story now being circulated states Israel first considered diverting the Litani southward, in 1905 because it seemed 'the waters of the Jordan basin would be insufficient for the future needs of Palestine. The problem is Israel did not exist and the Jewish leaders at that time of course might have proposed where to place a country because the League had not yet defined a mandate for a country and so it would be logical to consider water supplies when determining where to put a nation-so there would have been no sinister Zionist greedy conspiracy just people speculating on where best to situate an independent state. Its actually this consideration that then is restated as Ben Gurion wanted the Litani, because of its water and then yet again transformed to suggest it was part of a Zionist plan 1919 rejected by the League of Nations. The problem is when you make an effort to trace back the discussions, they were not part of any cohesive plan, just general speculative discussion and of course all of this discussion was circumvented by the British and French who carved up Lebanon and Syria and Jordan and Iraq in the ways they wanted. So this attempt to revise history to suggest it was some sort of sinister plan started with open speculation as to where to put a Jewish state, and then as the years go on mutates to become a conspiracy Ben Gurion then had to invade Lebanon and put in a puppet Maronite leader. Another version of this story has Ben Gurion and Dayaon desiring an Israeli-Maronite relationship culminating in 1955, as Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and General Moshe Dayan conceived this alleged plan to "buy a Maronite officer who would then 'invite' Israeli intervention in Lebanese affairs and enable Israel to establish control over Lebanon. To back this theory Israel's foreign minister, Moshe Sharett is quoted from his diaries, and references are made to Christian Maronite leadersPierre Gemayel and Camel Shamoun resisting the plan. This alleged scheme is then brought to the present tense and suggested to be the reason why Israel invaded Lebanon and all of Lebanon's problems are said to flow from it. Well there's a problem with taking history, speculating on it, taking quotes out of context, assuming motives and justiopositioning time lines to create a picture you want to see-it just may not be true. To make a long story short what probably happened is something far more simple then the evil sinister Zionist scheming conspiracy Higgly is convinced he understands. If one reads the actual diary of Sharett and the quotes of Ben Gurion in their full context or other quotes as to Lebanon, there is absolutely no doubt, it would have made perfect sense for people speculating where to put a country back in 1905 to say well lets put one where we can have water. Then after suggesting this if the French arbitrarily grabbed the land they were thinking of of course the idea would die. However if a proposed Jewish state then found itself being surrounded by hostile Muslim states not wanting it to exist, of course its creators and initial leaders would look to Maronite Christians in Lebanon as a natural ally and want to support such a state. If Britain, Israel and France were in fact speculating on how to deal with Nasser and expecting a war that might involve Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc., one would expect many scenarious discussed including how to put a pro-French puppet regime in Lebanon but the actual context probably had nothing to do with anything sinister and Zionist as Higgly suggests and everything to do with contingency plans on the ground for conducting war. As for trying to resurrect this sinister Zionist expansionist theory to capture Lebanon and this being the reason Israel went into Lebanon-that becomes sheer absurd nonsense because the motives for going into South Lebanon had nothing to do with water and everything to do with creating a buffer to prevent Hezbollah from being on its borders. All the theories that this invasion of South Lebanon was actually a sinister Zionist plot to expand as it always wanted and take over Lebanon require one to reach all over the place and take quotes out of historical time lines and context and reinvent their meaning to fit this theory. Its also a classic case of seeng what you want to see and if the theory you want to see is repeated many times, people like Higgly will assume its true because they see it repeated over and over and besides it fits their conception that Israel is sinister and a schemer. The problem is it doesn't mean its true or accurate.

Higgly's version of history regarding Lebanon and Israel and alleged Zionist expansionist theories comes from the following web-site; http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Fa...s/Story695.html The above web site is actually party of the web-sites propaganda unit of the Fatah wing of the PLO which creates many such sites to disseminate its political views without it appearing its coming from Fatah. Dr. Ismael Zayid is the spokesman for the above organization through the Canadian Palestinian Association in Canada and also presents articles quoting Ben Gurion and claiming Israel has always had designs on Lebanon.

After the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire in World War One, the League of Nations mandated that the 5 provinces which today form Lebanon be controlled by the French. It was the Sykes-Picot Agreement which first proposed how to divide up the Middle East and was in fact nothing more then an exercise of Britain and France deciding who wanted to control what and all based on being able to control the flow and supply of oil. It was at the San Remo Conference of 1920 when the boundaries that Britain and France would impose were decided upon and then were ratified by the League in 1921 and came in to effect legally in 1922. It was at the San Remo Congference where it was decided France would get two colonies, Syria and France. Syria was referred ot as a Class A mandate for France since it was to be an independent country meaning France would have less control over it then say if it was a Class B mandate, i.e., a colony. With a Class B mandate, France or Britain unlike with a Class A mandate, would have the right to administer the territory. The actual mandate given to France was a mixed A + B mandate. However France wanted to get as much area as possible to control and assure defensible borders for Lebanon made sure to obtain a border with Syria on the mountains on the far side of the Beqaa Valley. This land actually had belonged to the province of Damascus for hundreds of years and so its culture was more aligned to Syria’s then Lebanon’s but needing a defensible border, the French grabbed it. Consequently, the demographics of Lebanon were profoundly altered, as the territory added contained people who were predominantly Muslim or Druze: Lebanese Christians, of which the Maronites were the largest subgrouping, now constituted barely more than 50% of the population, while Sunni Muslims in Lebanon saw their numbers increase eightfold, Shi'ite Muslims fourfold. Modern Lebanon's constitution, drawn up in 1926, specified a balance of power between the various religious groups, but France designed it to guarantee the political dominance of its Christian allies. The president was required to be a Christian (in practice, a Maronite), the prime minister a Sunni Muslim. On the basis of the 1932 census, parliament seats were divided according to a 6 to 5 Christian/Muslim ratio. The constitution gave the president veto power over any legislation approved by parliament, virtually ensuring that the 6:5 ratio would not be revised in the event that the population distribution changed. By 1960, Muslims were thought to constitute a majority of the population, which contributed to Muslim unrest regarding the political system The French then exasperated the tension of the 4 peoples by designing a constitution that deliberately assured Maronite dominance of the government.So for example, the President of Lebanon had to be Christian (in practice, a Maronite), while the Prime Minister had to be a Sunni. Parliament seats were divided based on a 6:5 6 to 5 Christian:Muslim ratio. The President was given veto power over any legislation approved by parliament, which meant the 6:5 ratio couldnot be revised even if the population changed and so by the 1960’s when Sunnis were now the majority these built in guarantees for the Maronites were seen as undemocractic. Israel’s creation and the Palestinian mandate had nothing to do with the French land grabs and attempts to control Syria and Lebanon just as it had nothing to do with France’s colonial shennanigans in Morrocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. The problem is to this day Syria feels Lebanon was stolen from it. It also sees itself as the proper owner of Jordan and Israel. Lebanon resents Syria’s assumption it should get back half of Lebanon the French grabbed to create Lebanon and resents the Syria’s installing a puppet regime to promote its agenda and to this day Syria continues to assassinate any Lebanese politician that calls for independence from Syria. It suits Syria having Hezbollah in Lebanon for two reasons; i-it pleases its ally Iran, ii-in asddition to being a blood enemy of its enemy Israel, Hezbollah has in fact made it impossible for the country to be run by the Maronites or anyone else hostile to Syria. Hezbollah is in fact a lawless, self-governing anarchist force which ignores the constitutional laws and any other laws of Lebanon. It does what it wants when it wants and has repeatedly fought with the Lebanese Army. Interestingly Hezbollah also gets its members elected to the Parliament who basically take the position Hezbollah is self-governed. When the Lebanese government asked Hezbollah to defend itself it said it could not because Israel occupied the country. When Israel left and they were asked once again to disarm, they then stated even though they would disarm if Israel left, they changed their minds as the need to eradicate Israel was far more important then respecting the soverign wishes of the Lebanese government. Israel certainly did not help get sympathy from the Lebanese with its air war but the fact is, Lebanon lost control of itself years ago when the Syrians decided to deliberately incite civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and Maronites to serve as a pretense to occupy the country with its military forces and establish defacto government control. Forced to remove its military, Syria now operates a not so secret intelligence operation and uses Hezbollah to continue its control over Lebanon. Lebanon’s primary concern is Syria, then Hezbollah, then Iran. Israel is a moot point. If it could control Syria, Hezbollan and Iran using its nation as a launching post for terror attacks and destabilization of the region, it would never hear from Israel. If there is any hope of a long term peace solution to the Middle East it would necessarily require Israel, Lebanon and Jordan forming a common market with a second Palestinian nation on the West Bank and probably Turkey.

In response to Higgly; "Hezbollah is Shia and the Syrians are Sunnis." You missed the most important point. The ruling government of Syria is NOT Sunni but Alawite and its why they are in coalition with the Hezbollah and Iranian Shiites. "Weitzmann tried to get South Lebanon up to the Litani included in the British mandate because he wanted its fertile lands and the water from the Litani for his Jewish state. Israeli cabinet documents show that Ben Gurion plotted openly to foment civil war in Lebanon so that israel could come in at the "invitation" of the Maronites, and then conveniently never leave. It is well known that Israel has had its eyes on south Lebanon ever since." Your above comment is not well known nor is it even a fact. Its something you have made up and once again shows how you like to revise history and then try pass off your revisions as historic fact.

Once again Buffy the Zionist Slayer leaps onto the scene. Let's illustrate how the demon she tries to slay may not be shall we? And please Buffy I invite you to explain to us why what I post is inaccurate. I look forward to it. 1. There is a memorial sculpture and inscrimination in honour of Armenian victims in Jerusalem, Israel; 2. The Hebrew University Jerusalem, offers an Israel Armenian Studies Program Genocide and you can find it at; unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/~armenia/pdf/2003 HUJI Armenian Genocide; 3. The Israeli government has in the past recognized the Armenian genocide and in fact in a 2000 statement by Yossi Sarid, Mnr of Education which can be found at http://www.armenian-genocide.org/sarid.html he spoke openly of it and here is an excerpt which I sure Buffy can help explain; "Today in Israel very few youngsters have heard about Musa Dagh, very few know about the Armenian Genocide. I know how important the position of the Jews, and especially the attitude of the State of Israel to your genocide, are for Armenians in the world. As Minister of Education of the State of Israel, I will do whatever is in my capacity in order that this monumental work The Forty Days of Musa Dagh is once more well known to our children. I will do everything in order that Israeli children learn and know about the Armenian Genocide. Genocide is a crime against humanity and there is nothing more horrible and odious than Genocide. One of the objectives of our education- our main objective- is to instill sensitivity to the harm to the innocent based on nationality alone. We, Jews, as principal victims of murderous hatred are doubly obligated to be sensitive, to identify with other victims." On the day after the above statement. Israeli Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin stated in reference to the Amermenian genocide; "the events of 1915 cannot be defined except as genocide." Buffy is assuming because the state of Israel has never officially recognized the Armenian Genocide, it can be inferred the state is evil and hippocritical for remaining unofficial about it. Well before I offer another explanation for Buffy other then her usual "Israel bad" theory may I point out that many Jews and prominent politicians, historians and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger have openly spoke of and condemned the Armenian Genocide and if she bothered to find out what actually has been discussed oopenly in Israel about Armenian history she would know that. So why won't the State of Israel officially recognize it? Well come with me on my voyage of dicovery as I try explain to Buffy that there's more to discover other then then world of Israel bad bad bad. Turkey has in fact continually warned Israel it will cut off ties if it recognizes the killings as genocide, just as has threaterned the United States. An American Jewish group, the Anti-Defamation League, which anti-Zionists like to claim is part of the Zionist conspiracy and simply parrots Israel's policies in August of 2007, openly recognized the killings of Armenians as "tantamount to genocide", prompting Turkish protests. what Turkey then did is what many do, it did not differentiate between Jews and Israelis in its reaction, it simply turned against the State of Israel and held them responsibvle for the ADL's comments. This is what happens in the real world Buffy seems to floss over. If any Jewish group says anything, Israel can in reaction to those statements, get threatened and of course vice versa, what-ever Israel does or does not do can lead people to criticize all Jews. That is the real world Israelis and jJews have to live with and someone not Jewish and far removed from what that means like oh say Buffy (ne Finkleberg by any chance?)) does not understand or for that matter make an effort to try understand when she makes her assumptions. So let's try explain how black-mail works and how sometimes it prevents a country from doing what Buffy thinks should be done shall we? When the ADL denounced the Armenian genocide in August of 2007, Turkey's Ambassador to Israel immediately conducted an interview in the Jerusalem Post and stated he expected Israel to and I quote verbatum; "deliver the ADL and other Jewish organization on the Armenian Genocide issue". He made it clear Turkey expected Israel to ensure that ANY Jwish organization in the world AND the US Congress not pass any resolutions characterizing as genocide the massacre of Armenians during World War I. Turkey engaged in classic anti-semitism. It assumed Israel controls the free will and thought of Jews world-wide and simply gets on the phone and says " hello fellow Jew shush will yah". He also assumed Israel would call other Jews who miraculously control congress and say " "Hi Jews who control congress, listen up, when you aren't making movies in Hollywood or running the banks or controlling the media or kosher hot dog business, can you use your sinister Zionist power and tell congress to avoid any comments about Armenian genocides?" The Ambassador actually said: "Israel should not let the American Jewish community change its position. This is our expectation and this is highly important, highly important.... If you want to touch and hurt the hearts of the people in Turkey, this is the issue... This is the No. 1 issue. You cannot easily explain to them any change in this." He also stated "in the eyes of the Turkish people,Turkey's strategic relationship with Israel was not with Israel alone, but with the whole Jewish world. 'They [the Turkish people] cannot make that differentiation.'" So let's now ask can Buffy make that differentiation that Turkey won't? Do you think some of our other Israel bad bad bad posters can as well? How about this concept of Israel having something else going on preventing them from speaking as freely as they might want to on this issue-do you think that is possible? Or am I just a sinister Zionist conspirator spinning a lie? Could it be Israel is not as bad bad bad and unprincipled as Buffy has suggested it is? Here is what is going on in the real world. Israel is worried for the safety of Jews who live in Turkey first and foremost. It knows if is says something official in regards to the Armenian genocide, Turkey has said it will retaliate against Jews in Turkey. Turkey has also said it holds Israel responsible for controlling Jews world wide as to their expressions as to the genocide and will expect them to mriaculously control congress. This is the kind of insanity Israel must work with. In addition to needing to protect Jews in Turkey from a back-lash, Israel also has the practical reality of having to stay friendly with Turkey as it is one of its few allies, let alone Muslim allies in the world, let alone Middle East and is strategically important when dealing with Iran, Syria and helping counter terrorism. So it has to juggle the practical realities of back-lash against Turkish Jews and its over-all day to day survival issues depending on Turkey as an allie and the moral issue of recognizing the genocide. Not that Buffy cares but Turkey's pipelines are how Israel gets water and oil. Without both Israel could not survive. But hey in Buffy's world where she takes her security, water and oil for granted and where she takes it for granted she can say what-ever she wants when she wants, it probably wouldn't dawn on her that sometimes someone might want to do what is right, but has to find other ways to get the same message across. Its called the real world of politicals and international relations where things are not the simple, black and white, good v.s. bad Buffy wants them to be. Here is what the Foreign Minister of Israel said in September; "As Jews and Israelis, we have special sympathy and a moral obligation to commemorate the massacres that were perpetrated against the Armenians in the last years of Ottoman rule," said a statement from Livni at the time, hoping "both sides will reach an open dialogue that will enable them to heal the wounds that have been left open." She made this statement after an open bill in the Knesset was defeated that would have recognized the genocide. The Bill was defeated because Turkey suggested to Israel it would revive an alliance with Syria against Israel if Israel allowed the bill to pass. Gee imagine that. Israel vulnerable. Israel not the powerful all evil empire Buffy thinks it might be. All Israel can do for now on the state level is avoid alienating Turkey while on the cultural level, it continues to openly commemorate the Armenian genocide and teach it in its schools. Other countries not dependent on Turkey who could pressure it and won't, seem to have escaped Buffy's selective moral condemnation? Perhaps Buffy may wish to be credible and criticize them too or is the Armenian genoicde simply another opportunity to exploit for anti-Israel political arguements? I ams ure Buffy will prove me wrong. She would never exploit a genocide to suggest others who suffered in a genocide are bad people. She would never do that. so Buffy when do fly to China and Russia to get their governments to come on board? Say hello to Vlad for me. Watch it. He's a bit of a lady's man.

Then why did you repeat it Kuz. At least have the integrity to admit you posted it because you agree with it. To try say you can post articles you agree with then when someone challenges them, simply deny you wrote them is kind of cowardly don't y ou think? Either defend it or stop being a parrot. Anyone can parrot. You know what you were inferring by posting the article. The innocence is a gas though. Problem is if you fart in someone's face then try pretend you didn't they know why its a gas.

Don't ask such silly questions Ms. Buffy. How else are we supposed to control the world if we don't do such things.

An excellent post! ( p.s. Henry I am curious after all these years why is it you and Arnold just can't seem to shake those accents?

Ha!

and this one; Rube 101: Make sure you have teeth before you advertise yourself as a dentist. Rube 102: No point buying a comb when you are bald. Rube 103: If you fat in an empty elevator then the door suddenly opens and people enter there's no point trying to insist you did not fart. Rube 201: If you don't have teeth there's no point ordering the steak, stick to apple sauce. Rube 202: The only thing absolute is your own idiocy. Rube 203: A preacher is nothing more then a man with a confused penis. Rube 307: Some humans feel the Bible can be used as a guide to probe sexual values-preachers thien accelerate this concept and use it as a dildot. (see 203 above) Rube 401: Some men when they mature realize digital exams are inevitable so when a preacher offers to do one with a Bible we pass. Rube 666: Any man who preaches in fact has a leak in his depends. Rube 727: With age does not necessarily come wisdom just hair not growing in the right places but growing in the wrong places. Rube 808: Men will tell a woman what we think she wants to hear precisely because our penises tell us to. I am having a spercial seminar where lesbians will teach straight men how to appreciate Jodie Foster and gay men will attempt to teach straight men how to properly tuck in their shirts with donations going to the GAYS HELPING STRAIGHTS LEARN TO DANCE Committee. The cost is only $2000.00 with part of that going to me. (99.99% but hey its a living and I have to make t-shirts of myself to sell outside the Chinese consultate in Toronto). For further info call my secretary Dalton McGuinty. You can find his number in the blue book.