Rue

And Buffy said; " I haven't ever said the things you elude to in your above tirade. Hasbarfa alert? Israel benefits from the instability - plain and simple. WRT Naomi, I like her writing always have. ow, I await your next 'book' on the issue. Please, do send me a hasbarfa alert!" Now Ms. Buffy its Hasbara Alert. I also appreciate when someone tries to respond with facts as opposed to opinions you find it verbose. Here let me speak in small sentences. Yes 80% of Israel's exports in 2006 were high tech. Israel exported about $4 billion in defence equipment of which 1.5 billion of it went to India. It may also interest you to know Israel is China's second largest military supplier next to Russia and then Israel's $4 billion in exports is about 10% of world military sales in 2006 and the US, European Union, Russia and Japan, continue to be in that order, the world's largest military suppliers. You may also want to check out just how much Canada sells in military exports (yes more then Israel) and how much it sold to Israel!!! Now then Buffy, of that 80% of exports the vast majority of it was not military. It was telecommunications, medical electronics, fiber optics, electro-optics, inspection systems for circuit boards, robotics, computer imaging systems, and education programs. Guess what else Buffy. Tourism and shipping exports were 9.5 billion, polished diamonds 5 billion in 2006 and already 3.4 billion in 2007, and you know what Buffy, 21.5% of Israel's eports are chemicals, plastics and minerals. Israelis sold $801 million worth of flowers, fruit and vegetables and 1.4 billion in agro-technology, i.e., 252 milllion in drilling and irrigation equipment, 107 mil. in seeds. 5.5% of its exports are textiles and another 3.5% is food and beverages. Now I know you are not interested in facts Buffy but here are some more. The average Israeli has debt, and pays huge taxes and lives very modestly. The reason for that is because the country is small, has limited resources, and has huge debts causing inflation. Now Buffy many Israelis (and they are yegads a lot of times Jews Buffy) are physicians, scientists, technologists. Not all of them becomne stand up comedians.They go to this thing called university and they study. But you know heaven forbid we suggest Israelis educate themselves and study hard. Why would we say something like that right Buffy? Now I am going to say it one time. Israel does not benefit from anyone's tragedy Buffy and for you to say that in such an off-handed way is what riles me. It does infer Israel makes money from blood and you know it. Any expertise it has learned from being under constant attack such as surveillance, night vision, sattelite technology, surveillance equipment, guess what Buffy, is not just used to kill, it can be used to save lives and it is used for civilian things such as the tracking systems for search and rescue or police equipment or for airplanes and soon your car (pink no doubt). Also Israel has a very developed pharmaceutical industry and medical devices industry precisely because of all the Israelis blown up by bombs requiring it be highly advanced in medical rehabilitation and emergency services which Buffy is also used on Palestinians who have access to Israeli hospitals for cancer treatments, etc. It has about 150 military associated companies but sorry Buffy no more then that and most of the equipment is very niche, i.e., its not weapons its electronic systems that have both civilian and military uses. And yes Buffy I do not like the idea it sells technology to China. Then again you should see who Canada, the US, The European Union and Russia sell to before you get your knickers twisted. Yes I know. Israel in your mind benefits from tragedy. No doubt you boycott Israel products. But hey I know you don't blame the people in the country just their evil administration. p.s. you know Buffy its a shame you boycott Israel products. You could do with some Manishewitz wine to wash down some of that bitter taste for Israel you have. Also Buffy I do not doubt you love your mayonaisse and wonder bread but you know what, you really should have a falafel. Its not just Israeli. You can call it Lebanese and make it proper. I won't even sugest a kocher dill pickle or some matzoh (its made from blood).

"Which begs the question: If she is so successful in this manner, and has a economic boom currently in these 'war' related avenues - they why oh why is the US still funding her with aid MORE than any other country? I think Israel is now ranked somewhere within the 20 most wealthy states - so why not only the continuence of AID but also the increasing of AiD?" Because Zionists control the White House, the banks, Hollywood. Man isn't it obvious how they manipulate the world for their own benefit? I mean I am suprised I have to tell you that. More to the point, why don't you admit to Buffy you make your living selling military weapons. Come clean.

What? It can't be true. The Israelis make their money off of blood I tell you. (hint, Israels are wink wink nudge nudge, how do I say it Jews...and you know how Jews make money.....the evil way...it can't possibly be based on anything ethical...oh but no one meant to raise this stereotype at all...that is not what is behind this discussion at all...its me seeing things because I am a Zionist provocateur)

Come on B.C. Chick. You find an article that tells you what you want to hear and then you feel this is the way to understand the Israeli economy and with this one opinion piece, you now understand what Israel is about? Get serious! Try reading economic studies by economists. Tell me BC Chick, does this article make sense to you because it suggests Israel is getting rich for unethical reasons? Does that fit your stereotype of evil Jews with money? Oh gosh no. That can't be the reason. Its based on logic. You want to talk about Israel's economy seriously rather then engage in simplistic, subjective, inaccurate, opinion pieces, that conform to a preconceived stereotype that for Israel to do well it must be based on questionable activities, try some of this information out, and go check it for yourself if you think I made it up. And no it is not an accident you have epiphanies when you discuss Israel. You are properly completely unaware of your Christian reference and how you are simply feeding into the israel(jews) with money are doing something sinister concept. The Israeli economy at the present time is being fueled by advanced technology companies which grew 5.3% in 2005, then 6.6% in the first half of 2006. 1 in 10 Israelis is employed in high technology. High technology computer systems represent 50% of Israel’s exports and another 30% of Israeli exports also consist of advanced technology components. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Government of Israel, exports of goods and services rose 10/5% in 2005 to $42.8 billion then climbed again in the first half of 2006 by another 6.5% for another $23 billion. Israel’s trade deficit has been significantly lowered since imports were $23 billion for the first half of 2006. Unemployment has gone from 11% to 8.8% in the last 3 year period. When we say high technology BC Chick we are referring to mobile-cellular communications, internet applications, software services, semiconductors, medical devices, electro-optics, electronic accessories for defense and homeland security equipment. Of all the of the above exports, only about $4.2 billion is in actual military equipment sales. Sorry to burst your bubble. In addition to high technology, the Israeli enterprise, Teva Pharmaceuticals with sales in 2006 of about $7 billion represents the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer. Of that $7 billion, $1.3 billion came from the sale of Copaxone, today’s preferred treatment for multiple sclerosis. Now are you angry and resentful and what appears to be Israeli success? Not to worry. According to Dr. Glenn Yago, Director of Capital Studies at the Milken Institute, and three economic studies published by the Koret Israel Economic Development Funds, any conclusions as to Israel's economy are premature because Israel must still reduce the government's strict controls over budget and regulatory policies, and address numerous government policies that serve as disincentives to entrepreneurs. According to these economic studies, Israel continues to lack effective financial institutions and capital markets. Major economuc problems continue in Israel that could cause a down-turn in its economy including the fact that while small business in Israel compromises 96.5% of its business, it only receives 10-23% of local credit and less then 1% of small business borrowers received 70% of all credit. Consider this; while securitization in the U.S. is at a rate of 230% of its gdp, in the last 4 years, Israel's securitization was only 14% of its gdp. Which means its economy is not built on competition in a free stock market at this time. Israel's inner cities, particularly Jerusalem, Tel Aviv-Jaffa and Haifa are in serious decay and in need of major economic revitalization which will represent a serious strain on its ecoomy in years to come. More to the point, over 90% of venture capital in Israel comes from investors outside of Israel, mostly from the U.S. where the silicone valley firms continue to invest or buy out Israeli high technology firms whose products you will be using. When you are that reliant on external venture capital, you can be shut down very quickly. So if Israel's economy is doing well AT THE MOMENT it is because of high technology developments by its high tech computer industry BC Chick. It is doing well right now, but economic activities works in cycles and to think you can simply label Israel's economic performance based on a specific isolated period of time is dumb dumb and dumber. Israel is in a momentary strong cycle which wil continue to come and go with other cycles.

Well this supporter of Israel says Palestinians elected Hamas because it was their only choice. It was at the time the only non corupt organization. They voted for it because they want what we all want, schools, community centres. I strongly support Israel and despise all terrorists but I will not "blame" or "demonize" Palestinians because their leaders chose to turn to terror. Do you really think the average Palestinian can walk into a Hamas meeting and say to these thugs, please stop the terror? That is the point. Palestinians are as much a victim of Hamas as Israeli civilians are. That is the point you guys missed when you seem to have turned it around to impose collective guilt on Palestinians. I don't like it. I don't like it when people are lumped in categories the same reason I can't stand it when anti-Israelis do it to Jews and Israelis. Its wrong. Yes there are Palestinians who believe terror is the way to go. There are also idiots in Israel and in the Jewish community who feel the same way and there are no shortage of Christians and Muslims and people of all walks of life who feel the same way. I will not simply write off a people or humanity because of the minority of terrorists in their midst who dominate the media's attention. That is precisely what terrorists want-for you to demonize the people they claim to represent so they can fuel hatred to justify their terror. I say to Palestinians some of us who strongly support Israel also support your need to live in freedom and in peace and without terror and do not think you deserve your fate anymore then I believe anyone deserves to suffer.

Oy. Oy vay. Oy gevalt. (that's a zionist response) ( for the first time I am without words)

As for the other attempt by Kapitan "I refer to gays as fags" to engage in a treatise as to homo-sexuality may I suggest he go and wipe out as much life as he can on the planet since all life forms engage in homo-sexuality. I would simply wipe all these life forms out since they can't come to church. In regards to the gays or as the Kapitan refers to them "fags" I want everyone to know I saw the Kapitan at the gay pride parade yesterday and he tried to kiss me. I told him it was sinful. Besides I was getting it on with David Miller.

No but God created people like you who use words like "fag" and think they are in the position to lecture people and speak on behalf of God because I mean we all know you are God's right hand. Using your reasoning by the way, God would have had to have created Adam and Steve as he created all humans the last time I read YOUR Bible. If you are goiung to lecture people on Christianity and twist it to try defend your ignorance and bigotry at least try make some sense when you spew off such simplistic and pointless comments. By the way, good Christian prophet and spokesperson for God, the word Fag is derogatory. Would you like it if I made disparaging comments about you? Yah I know you are a good Christian and you don't hate "fags". With good Christians like you preaching love and tolerance, none of us have to worry about humanity.

There are more then 2 choices. The third choice I was not offered was and is that nneither Man or God pre-existed the other as they are one and the same. I mean I have one nice story. It goes like this. Once upon a time there was something that just was, is and will always be. It defies any human definiton as to beginnings, middle or endings. Now this something which defies description decided to vomit. It vomited bits of itself out word, maybe due to an internal imbalance or in act if disgust, maybe in a fit of loneliness, maybe in a fit of sheer insane range from being completely alone since because it wasand is everything it was and is nothing. The act of vomiting bits of itself out of itself outword may have created an infinite exercise of these bits of vomit each becoming their own God or creator creating their own universes which in turn vomit out even more particles creating even more Gods of layers of vomit. Trying to trace back these pieces of vomit to their original source of projection source might be impossible as the closer we get to the source the further it causes us to get from the source. So the question is did the thing that originally vomit do so as an act of love or insane psychotic rage? Did it do so to stop being alone out of an absolute act of kindness, i.e., giving without expecting anything in return since it did not need anything, or did it do so because it was insane from being alone and needed compansionship? So in my story one way or the other you are vomit. You are the result of a fart, a sneeze, a sudden bout of nausea. Whether that was involuntary or voluntary we do not have the brain capacity to know. In my world we are both the smelly vomititious consequence of perfection and the infinite creative sensation of love.

"I think the poster was equating supporting the troops with supporting the mission, not supporting war itself. It is something different altogether." It's the same assumption. It is the exercise of assuming because one supports the troops, one can then go on to assume it means one supoorts a specific political view. Whether you call it war, mission, or anything else, makes no difference to the fact that it assumes. Whether one uses the word mission or war, the assumption is the same. It is a conotation that assumes because one supports troops one favours certain unacceptable political views. The fact that I support troops means only that. If someone wants to assume anything else they should keep it to themselves and not presume to know what my political views are. The ribbon does not mention mission, war, Haper's views or anything else. It refers to them because there is a solidarity between firefighters, paramedics, police and soldiers. They are all in the service of putting their lives on the line on behalf of society. This has nothing to do with a specific political view and everything to do with people who put their lives on the line to keep society safe showing solidarity for one another. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the common risk they all share. If someone is so insecure about their own political views, that they see everything as an offensive political statement then I say to them-grow up and if you are that intolerant of others remember this-in this country you have the right to be intolerant precisely because someone is dying so you can get all snitty. You want to get snitty, go ahead, enjoy this right but don't you dare tell me I am not allowed to acknowledge the people who die so you can be a snit.

Imagine that. Councilors being cowards. What a concept. Yep its easy being politically righteous and accusing people who support troops with being politically inappropriate, until of course you actually have to put your own butt in the line of fire and defend such assumptions-then of course it is easier to run. I think we should send David Miller and his councilor supporters to Afghanistan on a municipal junket to study how the Taliban run their municipal governments. Excuse me if I go puke.

No you are by suggesting if one support troops they support war.

"and what do these two storys have to do with the religion of Islam? Not quite clear what you're trying to say." To ask the above question is no different then Drea engaging in the pretense of being politically appropriate-it belittles. What does it have to do with it? It has to do with an on-going battle between sects of Muslims that is what. It has to do with people who claim to be Muslim killing other Muslims. Or should we pretend it has nothing to do with Islam at all. Let's pretend there are no people who claim to be Muslim killing fellow Muslims or engaging in terror around the world. Let's pretend there are no Muslim clerics calling for suicide bombings and terror. Let's pretend Hezbollah are not doing what they do because they think they are good Muslims. Let us pretend there are no Muslim clerics at all calling for violence. Let's pretend because. If someone kills and claims they do it on behalf of God, and quote a religion, we have a right to suggest they are misappropriating the religion as JBG did or are you so selective and politically appropriate we can't do that...yah let us just pretend everything going on in the Middle East has nothing to do with Islam. Nothing at all. Its simply coincidental so many of these terrorists claim to be Muslim. Its coincidental Muslim clerics are also members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Drea if someone killed in the name of Jesus do you believce we should omit that from the story for fear we will offend Christians? Give it a rest with the righteousness.

In response to Black Dog’s comment; “Name one person who supports suicide bomber, O.K. thx!” and Drea’s comment; BD-if you’re not ‘with ‘em” you’re obviously “ against em” . Some people can only see black and white.”, I will respond by showing how you Drea and Black Dog in your attempt to be smug in fact have displayed the very black and white thinking you try criticize someone else for. May I suggest the two of you are either completely oblivious to anything outside your own black and white thinking or are deliberately being selective because I doubt either of you are that oblivious. But Black Dog why name ONE person. Why not name a few. Let’s start with the comments of Imad Faluji, a former Minster in the Palestinian Authority, who just on June 9, 2007 stated in Al-Hayat al Jadida, the Palestinian Authority daily, the following comments; "Planting fear among the enemy is the exalted and holy meaning of terror. We are not terrorists, if the meaning is unjustified killing... therefore, every murder of Israelis is legitimate: "We do not regret what we have done " How about Tony Martin, a radio talk show host in Palm Beach, Florida telling his listeners; “ Palestinians are entitled to believe that giving their lives in the hope it will bring their country freedom is a noble pursuit and a great sacrifice.” How about the one quarter of British Muslims surveyed who said bombings can be justified because of the British government’s support for the war on terror? Or the 45% of British Muslims who stated they felt the 9-11 attacks were a US-Israeli conspiracy? How about the Pew Research poll conducted in the US which indicated one quarter of Muslims age 18-29 felt the use of suicide bombings against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified , “at least on rare occasions”. Lest you think I would suggest only Muslims feel this way (and I happen to believe the vast majority do not and detest violence and terror and suicide bombings as much as me but do have some of their young vulnerable to the attraction of terrorism fundamentalism) how about going on the inter-net and acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of articles and essays suggesting terrorism against Israel is justified, that terrorist attacks are in fact fake operations created by Israel, or simply freedom fighting. How about University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill after 9-11 writing a treatise entitled “ Some People Push Back” and going on a speaking tour suggesting the 3,000 people who died in the Twin Towers were not innocent and described them as “little Eichmans”. How about former University of London Professor Ted Honderich who wrote After The Terror, published in the Edinburgh University Press, who stated terrorism is morally justifiable. How about in May of 2006 when British MP George Galloway stated it was morally justifiable for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair because of Britain’s decision to go into Afghanistan and Iraq? How about in December of 2001 when the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Akrameh Sabri stated suicide bombings are not only justified but should be encouraged? How about the student rallies in Europe and in particular France, Sweden and Italy where students dress themselves up as suicide bombers and call for the destruction of Israel? Where were you when the Bishop from Jerusalem caught red handed smuggling bombs and weapons to terrorists in Jerusalem, marched with Italian students and referred to suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs? May I suggest you two pull your head out of the sand and look closely at yourselves before you suggest others are looking at the world in black and white. May I suggest you consider reading; “ The Rage and the Pride “ by Oriana Fallaci. She will confuse you. She is and has always been a leftist not a neo-con and yet she has some things to say about people who in fact claim to be leftist and progressive who selectively ignore the left’s support of suicide bombings and terrorism. No people who support suicide bombings are not just facist wing nuts. Many are students and professors and people who claim to be moderates. You just might find some on these posts if they have the guts to admit it.

Except when the state has universal suffrage and is a multi party parliamentary democracy. You again establish the fact that in reality pluralism is a fluid and relative concept. It is an ideal to strive for and countries can to a certain degree be pluralistic and in other ways not be. In the case of Israel its doctrine which allows Jews the automatic right to citizenship is not pluralistic, but it is in most other ways. Its Rabbinical Courts and therir definition of who is a Jew and its influence on say family law, abortion and homo-sexuality makes it an anti-pluralistic element in regards to Israeli society when it tries to dominate the approach to be used to such issues. That said modern Israel limits very much how far it will let its Rabbinical councils influence it and if they do have power it comes not necessarily from their religious influence, but their political infliuence, i.e., electing its members to the Knesset. The Rabbinical Conservatives have in fact turned into a political entity precisely because of their lack of influence on religious values. To now get their views across they need to engage in the same politicing the Muslim and Christian Jews do, so in that sense its political participation reflects pluralism although its views might necessarily be against pluralism. Cetainly the Ultra-Orthodox Jews who do not recognize the existence of Israel and do not mix with others are far from pluralistic but their very insulated manner makes them an ineffective agent to prevent pluralism while their being able to be left to practice what they do without interference is an example of pluralism. People who use religions in an orthodox and fundamentalist manner, tend to be anti-pluralistic but this does not mean there are not moderate Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., who are very much believers in pluralism and do not use their religion to set up ghettoes and segregation but use it to find commonality with other groups. We have to be careful not to generalize and immediately assume since one is Muslim or Jewish or Christian they can't be pluralistic in beliefs. However I concede if it was Buffy's point that the orthodox fundamentalists in the Middle East, particularly those claiming to speak on behalf of Islam to justify their terror prevent pluralism or the extreme right wing fanatics in Israel who cheered Yitak Rabin's death and claim to be good Jews following their religion, are the anti-thesis of pluralism and try prevent pluralism or agitate against it. I myself am a Reform or Liberal Jew the same reason there are Christians or Muslims who feel the same way, precisely because we wish to be pluralistic and rejectvorthodox beliefs which would otherwise segregate us and prevent pluralism and do not lend to the vision of humanity we wish to be part of. I could not imagine being able to be a Jew, if I could not learn how to be a Jew with the assistance of Buddhists, Taoists, aboriginals, Unitarians, agnostic Christians, Wiccans, certain Hindus and Muslims, Bahaiis, atheists, certain Anglicans and Jesuits, and so many others I have lost track of who have shared their beliefs to help me be a better person by providing wonderful approaches to looking at mystical concepts. I do not wish only to look to a certain book or passages and only follow those. I think it would suffocate me. Pluralism really comes down to how each individual citizen in a state choose to pursue their life and whether the politicians they elect reflect an attitude that includesor excludes. In reality societies are a pendelum that swing from inclusion to exclusion depending on the prevailing influences. Certainly after 9-11, we could see how it suddenly had a strong influence on pluralism and brought home the fact if you lived outside the Middle East and your name was Arabic or you looked Arabic, suddenly the concept of pluralism quickly mutated to exclude these people from trust and to this day when any of us get on a plane, be truthful, if you see a man who looks like he could be both a Muslim and a Muslim it may make us think twice. But then if you are a visible minority or someone with a disability struggling to gain access, this is stating something they know far too well. Within Israel, there is a struggle to define the country's identity and its not between Jews and non Jews, its within the Jewish communities. Israel figured out how to treat Muslims and Christians in its country, but with its own peoples it struggles to try figure out how one can be democratic and religious at the same time. The two by their bery nature clash just as they have in our Western countries when certain religious communities want their version of religion to dominate the political landscape and its institutions. In the West we claim to be pluralistic but of course we debate just how pluralistic one can be and still remain a state. Isn't the whole debate on how multi-cultural we should be based on a debate as to how pluralistic we should be?

In that case no country is truly pluralistic. If you use it as an absolute definition as you have then its no different then using the word perfect or enlightened or completely fair to all. The very nature of the definition makes it something to strive for so its an ideal one hopes to achieve but no country can say they have completely achieved it. So it is in fact by its vary nature variable. Countries can be pluralistic in degrees. Any state that will not seperate religion from state, obviously by that very act, impacts on their ability to be pluralistic but many nations claim they can be without completely seperating their religious and political views. In Canada and the United States, we claim to seperate religion from state, but in reality politicians make it known what there religious beliefs are to get votes and in Canada we give special rights to Catholics for their schooling we give no one else. Do you note the poster who gave an example of Turkey as pluralistic? He did so as many do, becaiuse the concept wasw used subjectively to suport his opinion of what pluralism is. In Fact Turkey has never been pluralistic to its Armenians or Kurds or its Romanos, gays or its communists or labour leaders. Turkey is not a good example at all of a truly pluralistic society for those reasons. How we define whether a country is pluralistic or not often because subjective and based on the definers personal preconceived cultural or political biases projected on the country we analyze. What appears pluralistic to one, may appear racist to another. I have yet to see the same objective standards be used on all nations equally when defining how pluralistic they are, and so until that is done, it is just another label people use when they like or do not like a country and wish to either complement it or insult it.

"Quite rightly so. Because they never had been given a chance to establish one, under continous and oppressive occupation. ". The Palestinians were given total and absolute control of the West Bank under the Oslo accord. They were given autonomous control of Gaza. In the case of Gaza, Hamas assumed Israel's withdraw was weakness and in fact said so and immediately began missile attacks into Israel proper the moment Israel withdrew which to this day has many blaming Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as a reason Hamas escalated its violence. As for the West Bank why don't you read and find out the amount of political power Arafat was given and what he did with it. Your comments the PLO never had a chance to establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza completely ignores that in fact they were and chose not to create a state as it would have been seen as a sell out to terrorists who see the only solution as eradicating Israel. There is a reason so many Palestinian moderates not interested in terror and violence and who want to start a state can not and it has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with their own leaders. Mind you there is no doubt certain Israeli policies have been diasterous and have provided terrorists the perfect pretext to engage in more terror. There is no doubt for example, placing settlements in the West Bank incited as opposed to easing problems. I am not saying Israel has not made mistakes but I am saying the off handed comment the Palastinian Authority was not given the opportunity to rule its people free of interference from Israel is just not true. As for the decision to take the billions in developmental aid and piss it away rather then build a country with it, go speak with the terrorists blinded by their hatred and who feel all their people are expendable until they eradicate Israel.

Thanks for the heads up Sharkdude. I guess I can take a rest! Lol. Ladies of..what? Sounds like a Vince McMahon WWE concept.

In fact Israel employed 14,000 Palestinians in their government and paid their salaries, and spent millions funding its schools, mosques, community centres, roads, and an elaborate greenhouse system to feed its people not to mention providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians within Israel proper while the Arab League has done NOTHING for Palestinians. Israel did so even knowing many of these organizatoons and people and entities hated them and wanted them eradicated. It did so precisely because at that time, in the 1980's Hamas denounced terror and advised its people not to engage in any terror. When a violent faction wrestled control of Hamas and insisted on engaging in terror, they ordered the roads to Israel blown up, destroyed all Israel funded servcies including the green houses and threatened any Palestinian who chose to work or get along with Israelis. Israel did not withdraw its help Hamas told its people not to accept it and they threatened to kill anyone who went to Israel to work. They then deliberately sent suicide bombers into Israel proper knowing this would incite distrust among Israeli civilians towards Palestinians. Unlike the Arab League Israel has in fact spent money directly on Palestinians to help them and build their economy while the Arab League and entire Muslim world has refused to. In fact the poverty and state of Palestinians today is the direct result of the Arab League refusing to settle Palestinioans in other Muslim countries or openly denounce terror and assist in funding its economy. It has never fundedsocial workers, teachers, community developers, to help Palestinians build a country in the West Bankl and Gaza. If the Arab League really cared about Palestinians it would have settled those Palestinians who asked to resettle in their countries and told the remaining Palestinians to stop with the terror and help them create a second Palestine state. Instead it deliberately left them to rot in cmaps as a pawn to pressure the world to end Israel and stated this was the reason they left these people in camps. Israel had to absorb 700,000 Jews from the Muslim world after the same Arab League countries threw these Jews out and stole their property to punish them for starting Isael, but to this day the Arab world will not do the same for Palestinians. Why don't you ask yourselves how it is the Gulf Oil states with all their finances, could not afford to spend a penny on Palestines. Your bias and assumption Israel wants Palestinians to suffer and remain poor projects your personal bias onto Israelis and presumes that is how they think. I It also completely ignores the obvious and what has now been proven but people like you conveniently ignore in your selective analysis and that is that since the PLO came into power, Arafat and his corupt leaders stole billions upon billions of the aid that was sent to the Palestinians ( by the US, Europe and the UN but NO Muslim countries) and stock-piled it in Swiss and French bank accounts when it wasn't spending it on its organized syndicate which smuggled heroin and hash hish from Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon and Syria through to Marseilles, France using the pretext of being a Palestinian political national group when all along its real business agenda was drugs. That of course we ignore. we of course blame Israel not the coruption of the PLO and then the decision of Arafat and Hamas NOT Israel to decide the only solution for its people was to forfeit all their economic rights and personal rights and deem all Palestinians expendable until Israel is destroyed. If you want to know where all the aid money that was sent to build Palestine went to, read what Arafat and Hamas did with it before you simply pull a Figleaf and blame Israel. The fact is Hamas which was elected precisely because it claimed it was not corupt and would not do this then took the same money and used it for weapons, bombs and missiles. Ask yourself how it is possible for Palestinians to ever build an economy when the leaders who hold them hostage state they must forfeit all their rights and their lives until Israel is destroyed.

The conditions proposed were utterly unjust to the Palestinians and rightly unacceptable. Again Figleaf right on cue and of course not a clue what you are talking about. In fact Arafat was given everything he asked for and stated this. He in fact did not say it was utterly unjust and in fact said the exact opposite and welcomed it. Why don't you read what was offered Arafat and what he agreed to and read Bill Cliton's essays as to what Arafat said to him and what was arrived on before you as usual, simply make statements for the sale of making noise and being anti-israel. Its tiresome. The reason wby the Oslo Accord unravelled has nothing to do with it being unfair and everything to do with the majority of factions in the PLO and Hamas not wanting any kind of settlement with Israel and wanting it eradicated. You shoot off at the mouth because you ignore what was actually stated by Arafat, what was given to him in the agreement as per his request, and of course as you shoot off at the mouth and engage in the fiction the proposed agreement was unjust you ignore the fact that Arafat and Hamas never said the agreement was unjust but in fact said it would only leave Palestinians with the West Bank and Gaza and they were only interested in a solution that disbanded Israel and gave the entire country back to Muslims to install a Muslim theocracy. Why I even bother to respond to you is beyond me given of course you will respond with the usual, oh no Israel never offered anything and oh no Arafat and Hamas never said they wanted Israel destroyed and the only solution they could accept was the complete destruction of Israel. In your world, we pretend such things do not exist and we engage in the fiction that Israel was unfair bad bad bad.

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society? Why not? Andrew Israel has not yet decided if they are a pluralistic nation or not. It is halfway. In some respects, Israel is a Jewish Nation. In other respects, Israel is a pluralistic nation-state. Until Israel decides this question for themselves, regarding their own relgion, you may assume that Israel is NOT a pluralistic society at all. One one level Israel is pluralistic in that it confers the exact same legal rights to non Jews as it does Jews, i.e., same access to hospitals, schools, government services, same legal rights granted in the courts, guarantee to be serviced in Arabic, vote. On a non political level, on a purely religious one, it is not pluralistic and struggles with the definition of who it should define as a Jew which it confers one legal right it does not give non Jews which is the automatic right to Israeli citizenship. That said, I am not sure if I, a Reform Jew would be recognized as a Jew and be granted the right of citizxenship simply for being Jewish, since by the Rabbinical courts in Israel do not recognize me as being Jewish. So its a complicated issue and it sound slike it discriminates in favour of Jews with that one right but it does discriminate even with Jews. There was a huge debate when Ethiopian Jews came to Israel because these same Rabbinical courts questioned their Jewishness until a compromise had to be reached. With the exception of this law of return which applies only to qualifying Jews giving them automatic Israeli citizenship Israel is as pluralistic as any Western nation if not more so when we look at the way say Europeans, i.e., France have treated their citizens of colour or African or Arabic origins or the way many European countries have treated their "guest workers" from Turkey, etc. Of course if you are British, do you really think a Jew or a Muslim or a Catholic could be a Baron or Lord? In the Muslim countries where there is no seperation of religion from state, if you are a Christian or Jew, you are not allowed to vote or own property. Then again the problem was further solved by simply throwing all the Jews out and to this day simply killing or persecuting Christians, Bahaiis, or Hindus. Now you want to talk pluralism, we must ask is any country really pluralistic? Can it be? We of course think we are in Canada but if you were aboriginal or say a young black man stopped by the police simply because you are young and driving a nice car, you may not think so. If you are a new Canadian struggling to find a job you may not think so. If you are someone with a mental illness or disability who no one wants to hire or does not provide access to, you would not think so. Its all in the eye of the beholder and it can be subjectively and selectively used by people in political arguements. I think pluralism varies and can occur on different levels and in many variable forms. Say for example the U.S. We know its constitution insists religion and state are seperated to guarantee pluralism but if you are aboriginal, Latino or Black, you may have strong opinions as to how pluralistic it has been when it comes to the history of your people.

Not all fundamentalists are created equal. Iran is Shia, the Taliban Sunni. They don't like each other very much. That makes a bit more sense, I suppose (though it still relies a bit heavily on the Ahmedinjad=Cobra Commander narrative). I am glad Blackdog someone has pointed out that the Taliban (Sunni) and the Iranians (Shiites) are not true allies. There are many shifting alliances of convenience in the Middle East. One can be your enemy but suddenly become a temporary ally if both of you have an even more pressing enemy. Then once that enemy goes away, you revert back to being enemies again. Time and time again we have seen alliances between Muslim fundemantalist groups who have no love for one another but work together against a common enemy, say Russia, the US, Israel, etc. Taliban is an extremely complex web of mujahadeen warriors who were brought together by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They are very orthodox Sunni Muslims and I really doubt they would treat Shiite fundamentalists who tried to come in their country and control it any differently then they would Americans, etc.

LOL Nothing gets by you eh? Nice theatrics, but I hope you argue better than that in court. I will mention it again. I fight Fiigleaf tooth and nail and completely disagree withmost everything he says and even personally think he deliberately baits people who believe Israel has the right to exist, but I do not think for one second Figleaf has said anything to warrant accusing him of hatred for Jews or Christians. That is not fair.