Rue

Come on that depiction of gay people you used is just plain dumb-ass. You really think you can stereo-type gays as people who lisp? What next? Come on. Get a life. we can do better then that. If we are still at the point of disparaging gays with such ridiculous stereo-types, its time to grow up. You want to be funny as opposed to disparaging against gays, be my guest. Why turn what was an amusing story into a dumb-ass statement about gays? Come on Dancedude. You are better then that.

One may just as well wonder as to why the Palestinians extremists launch their terrorist attacks just before the charity event. To assume there is a connection between events in Israel and a Toronto charity event is either the height of stupidity or the depths of racist trolling..... What makes it even more disgusting Dancing Man is that it is public record the UNited Jewish Federation has been putting on this event for years and how much money it raises and where it is used is also public record and I might add much of it goes to social agencies that not only service Jedwish Israelis, but Christian and Muslim Israelis. To me it is nothing more then an anti-semitic sneer at innocent non political efforts to raise funds for charitable deeds. It is in fact anti-semitic because it has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with impugning the reputations, motives and character of Canadian citizens simply because they are Jewish. Would Higgly suggest this about any other ethnic group when they engage in charitable activities? Its repulsive.

The Walk With Israel campaign is put on every year by the United Jewish Federation. The money raised this year is ear-marked for a day-care centre in Hatzor Haglilit, a Northern Town in Israel, which was attacked during the Lebanese war. It also will provide funds for Ethioopian Women in Kiryat Moshe. The United Jewish Federation engages in fund-raising activities to fund social projects for all Israelis including Jewish, Muslim and Christian Israelis. Where the money is sent is decided by a committee which liaises with social agencies in Israel to decide where the money is most needed. Ontario Police Chief Julian Fantino and Stephane Dion were part of the march. So were many non Jews. To suggest as Higgly does that this charity activity carried out every year at this time by approximately 20,000 people is timed to support the on-going conflicts between Hamas and Al Fatah is ludicrous. Some ask Higgly to spit it out and tell us if he believes this is not a charity fund raising event and these 20,000 people including Stephane Dion and Julian Fantino are either part of a Zionist propaganda conspiracy or are so stupid that they are all being used. My blood boils at someone trying to smear the charitable efforts of good, honest decent people.

"Not at all. My post was about the timing of Israeli offensives and the "Walk With Israel" initiative. If you want to talk about rockets, start your own thread and stop hijacking mine. " Your point was to infer that the Walk for Israel a charity fund-raising exercise to raise funds for social agencies in Israel that service BOTH Jewish and Non Jwish Israelis equally is in fact a ruse and is in fact carefully planned to serve as propaganda support as part of a conspiracy. That was your point and as usual is you making slurs about Jews and their motives and trying to suggest they are dishonest and engage in elaborate hoaxes and conspiracies. Your slur was at Canadian Jews and their motives for supporting Israel. Your attempt to link a charity event planned years in advance with current political conflict is not only ludicrous but it once again shows the transparency in your agenda. Spit it out Higgly. Are you suggesting the Walk for Israel is in fact a conspiracy and is in fact timed as part of a world wide Jewish conspiracy? Have the courage to either come clear on your inference or cease and desist with such attempts to constantly smear Jews when they engage in charitable activities. You bet I am confronting you and calling you out on this. To disparage and impugn the motives of people involved in charitable efforts with an inference but no basis for your inference is in my opinion as low as it gets.

Fatah al-Islam is led by Shaker Abssi a former air force pilot (colonel) born in Jericho in 1955. He has admitted having ties to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian born leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who was killed by the US Army in Iraq. What is known is Abssi was arrested and jailed in Syria from 2003-2006. The Syrians claim they have a new outstanding warrant for his arrest. Then again Syria denies backing Fatah al-Islam so its claim it wants him arrested appears to be a cover story to distance itself from the group. It is also known that in 2004, a Jordanian court sentenced Abssi to death in absentia for the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley,in Amman, Jordan in 2002. Abssi also has an alias, Abu Yussef. While Fatah al-Islam’s ideology is militant and fundamentalist, it is Sunni not Shiite so it is not linked to Hezbollah nor has there been any proof it has links to al-Qaeda directly although its ideology sounds the same. Fatah al-Islam has been accused by the Lebanese government of bombing a bus in a Christian area of Beirut in February, of 2007, killing 3. Interestingly Al-Abssi was first involved in another terrorist cell, Fatah Al-Intifada, sponsored and organized and operating out of Libya and it split from Al Fatah in 1983. Al-Abssi wentto Damascus from Tripoli, Libya where he joined forces with another terrorist Abu Khaled al-Omla. In November of 2006, Al Abssi set up operations in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon now the scene of fighting which has seen 79 die so far. In fact this terrorist cell forcefully took over three areas of the camp that were controlled by Fatah al-Intifada. Intelligence journals report the size of Fatah-Al Islam to be about 200, of which 6 are Palestinians and the rest being Syrians, Saudi Arabians and Iraqis. There are believed to be 50 Lebanese non Palestinians in this cell. The Lebanese daily newspaper Al Hayat ran a story stating that Fatah al-Islam is run by Syrian military officers. No doubt if they are captured this will come out.

I agree Argus. The double standard is there.

"I never said anyone claimed that "homosexual" and "pedophile" were synonymous." " I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that a pedophile cannot also be a homosexual and that a homosexual cannot be a pedophile, nothing in their definition states that they cannot be both. " "There is no reason to believe that one cannot be the other," Kapitan the above two statements from you in fact state homo-sexuality and pedophilia are the same. What makes your denial of continuing to slur gays as pedophiles even more ludicrous then your above contradictions is you yourself produced dictionary quotes which at no time suggested homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to children and you then quote the following definition; "Pedophile: [noun] "An adult who is sexually attracted to children" - WordWeb." You demonstrated to everyone your arguement about linguistic definitions is not applicable since the above two definitions even if we ignore medical terminology as you want to do and simply stick to non medical terminology, are not the same. There is nothing slippery about you. I believe your intentions are clear and blatant. You wish to slur gays as pedophiles, no more, no less. You have demonstrated to us all in this debate you have not onlyu ignored the non medical dictionary definitions, but you have dismissed the DSVM psychiatric manual, the American Psychological Association clinical definitions... in fact you have dismissed everything presented to you that indicates homo-sexuality and pedophilia are two distinct behaviours and the above contradictions show you are doing it with pre-meditation and deliberate intent. At no time have you presented any medical evidence or linguistic evidence or for that matter ANY evidence to base your usbjective opinion that same sex with an adult and same sex between a child and an adult should be called the same thing. At no time have you shown us how a sexual act with a child of the same sex, is the same psychological process as a sex between consenting same sex adults. In fact your trying to infer one can be both is not and was never the point. No one has ever stated someone can practice homo-sexuality with adults and pedophilia with children. That has never been the issue. The issue has been you deliberately saying the two can be called the same thing when your own information you have quoted makes the differentiation. You have been shown over and over again with medical documentation that any sex with a child as opposed to an adult is not homo-sexual or hetero-sexual because the sexual pathology and the cognitive processes involved with adult to child sex is completely different then adult to adult sex. You choose to deliberately ignore the psychiatric and psychological components of these behaviours that make these sexual practices different. You deliberately suggest that the two should simply be called homo-sexual. That Sir makes you in my opinion deliberately provocative. You are in my opinion not being honest with us in insisting you can call them the same name. I don't find you slippery. I with due respect find you to be a coward for trying to suggest you have not suggested homo-sexuality is synonomous with pedophilia, but then state it one sentence later. Sorry to me that is cowardly. I find it to be passive-aggressive in nature. You deny something then do it. Now you want me to be blunt, let us be blunt-I do not believe for a second you can not see the difference in pathology and behaviour between sex with adults and sex with adults and children. I think you deliberately choose to blur them and infer that homo-sexuality is pedophilia. It is my subjective opinion you have demonstrated religious views that are prejudice against any humans whose sexual practices differ from yours. (although I am not sure if you even engage in sex, please do not assume I meant that, I mean using your style of debate, I cannot say you are not a virgin). You have expressed your religious views that homo-sexuals are sinful (oh but not evil just sinful) and you don't stop there you suggest anyone who has sex other then to procreate and don't procreate within a marriage are also sinful. That Sir, in my opinion, makes you a person who likes to judge others because you think that is what the Catholic Church has told you to do. Now after reading your comments, I am having a hard time believing you engage in the abiove because the Catholic Church told you to think this way and you have no independent thinking process. Kapitan, with due respect, tt would be one thing for you to be honest and say, you know what, based on my religion I do not approve of gay life-styles. Fine. But you have not done that. You have in fact played a word game to try suggest homo-sexuals are pedophiles and that is something completely different. It is in my personal opinion hateful and odious. I can understand someone telling me they are of a religious faith that is against being gay or having sex outside marriage. That is not the issue and never was. I make no judgements as to your religious beliefs or right to have them. Using any religion as a pretext to say homo-sexuals are pedophiles or sinful, would be my concern. As for your denial Kapitan, your own words hoisted you on your own petard. You being a Kapitan can understand that term. It is naval in origin which again should not be construed as your belly button as that could be seen as sexual and therefore sinful.

As I understand his positions, he believes there is no intelligent design or something behind it all that originated it all. He seems to argue that everything as we know it is a series of accidents and that anyone who tries to assign intelligent design to these random accidents is suffering from a delusion. It still doesn't make me an atheist. I still would argue as even he concedes that atheism is arrogant in that it goes so far as to believe in an absolute the same way religious people believe in absolutes about "God". I myself do not think any human is capable of defining anything absolutely and at best all we end up with are opinions even those tested with empirical methodology. To me if you could prove God did not exist you would in fact also be proving its existence. I do believe the exact opposites become one and the same in any form of conception. That I believe although not absolutely but most probably.

I appreciated his comment.I also very much appreciate when others express opinions. If you read what I have written I am way more to the left then Argus or JBG but I am trying to simply prevent these debates on Israel to revert to one sided name calling. Argus' perspective is a lot dryer and blunt then mine and I would say JBG and I are very typical of what kind of dialogue you would see within Israel bewteen the left and right with JBG being if he doesn't midn me saying classic Likud in position while I am probably Labour. Argus is consistently conservative in his views but I defy anyone to say he is pro anyone. He has blasted everyone equally which I kind of like in that it is consistent and I like someone who hates everyone equally. Now as for this road kill stuff, yegards man, JBG is not that mean to people. You are referring to him yes? Hah. I was joking. Have a nice day you Zionist supporter-hater-or whatever you ares.

Thanks.

I think it is absolutely a joke that the Kapitan not only referred to the doctors I quoted as "my" doctors, but is not embarassed that he simply ignored the American and Canadian Psychiatriatic, Medical and Psychological Association definitions and started to cryptically or perhaps mystically refer to "linguists" to try rationalize for his ignoring the clinical definitions for pedophiles, hetero-sexuals and homo-sexuals. Since he is in to demanding quotes, let us ask him, what linguist has defined homo-sexual and pedophile as being synoymous. None has. What Kapitan did was to take a definition and re-invent its context to suit his needs but you will notice at no time could he find me a "linguist" who defined pedophilia and homo-sexuality with the same words. Of course aside from being disingenuine Kapitan with your " I prefer to rely on linguist" response, not only do you not explain how linguists are academic experts on sexual behaviour but you failed to provide any linguist who quoted homo-sexuals have sex with children. I waited awhile before I responded because I was in fact disappointed that the Kapitan simply chose to engage in such a response. By the way the Kapitan would probably have a problem with linguists who speak more then one language. Because then they would be BI-lingual. Can't have that now can we.

To suggest Saudi Arabia and Israel are in cahoots is past the point of absurdity. Saudi Arabia funds the vast majority of Palestinian Sunni terrorist cells. That is a substantiated fact and Saudi Arabia admits it and does not hide that fact. Get real. Saudi Arabia is not and has never been Israel's ally. To try twist what is going in in Lebanon to suggest this is nonsensical. The conflict within Lebanon has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with France and Britain artificially imposing colonial borders and forcing different ethnic groups into unrealistic living conditions. Israel is as much a victim of France and Britain's decision to slice up Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan as any Arab country. As for the decision of the Arab League to deliberately create Palestinian refugee camps and instruct its member nations not to grant citizenship to Palestinians, is something the anti-Israel constellation, i.e., Figleaf and Higgly and Buffy can discuss amongst themselves at a kosher delicatessan but may I suggest to blame the Lebanse conflict on Israel is nonsense, it is in fact a Muslim on Muslim policy. The current conflict in Lebanon is in fact between a Syrian controlled militant terrorist cell and the current Lebanese government. Syria has lost colonial control over Lebanon and had tried to restrore it through Hezbollah but Hezbollah has made it clear they have no need for Syria unless its to fight Israel other then that Hezbollah can not be manipulated by Syria, so the Syrians now are looking for other allies within Lebanon to try destabalize and overthrow the current Lebanese government which is anti-Syrian. You want to point fingers stop creating ridiculous fantasies about Saudi Arabia and Israel and look to Syria fueling the latest tension to try topple the Lebanese government. You also may want to ask yourselves what the French are doing. They pride themselves on being the Western power with the most influence in Lebanon but they allied themselves with Hezbollah even after 55 French soldiers were killed by Hezbollah. You may ask them what they are doing these days because it would appear they are actively allied with bith Syria and Hezbollah and will look the other way and not support their once French speaking Phelangiste Christian allies in Lebanon. If you think Israel has any vested interest in what is going on in Lebanon other then preventing Hezbollah or other Palestinian terrorists from attacking it, you are dead wrong. As for what Argus said about these refugee camps in fact being cities, go find out for yourself. He is dead on. Take a look at their size and the logistics involved and how they are in fact autnomous political zones which the Lebanese army and government has not been allowed to enter. This notion where peopl born in Lebanon will remain "Palestinian" until the magic day they will destroy Israel and "return" there is a fiction used to exploit and control these people by Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Muslim terrorists who seek to establish Muslim theocractic empires and could care less about Palestinians. But of course what would a discussion on anything in the Middle East be without someone blaming Israel for something. The alliance with Saudi Arabia though that is almost as good as the one about Paris Hilton being smart.

Nonsense, the palestinian civil war is being covered. The reason Hamas aims these rockets at Israeli civilians is to show how big and important they are. Its also interesting Dancingman that a not so unintentional result of Hamas showing it is the big bad guy of the block by shooting missiles at Israel, is that when Israel shoots back, it stops the fighting between Hamas and Al Fatah which started this latest mess in the first place since neither side wants to attack one another when Israel is shooting back for fear they look allied to Israel. Hamas is not stupid. It deliberately provokes an Israeli reaction neutralizing Al Fatah in the process. The sad reality is that Al Fatah and Hamas have been at civil war for over 3 years. If it weren't for their common belief that Israel should be eradicated they would have turned on each other long ago and it will continue. The notion that Palestian society is united and has the same opinions is nonsense. At the current time there are well over 300 Palestinian political cells each with their own leader and ideology. The Palestinian Authority like Hamas or the Palestinian Liberation Organization are just names for networks of loosely affiliated terrorist cells. What is so difficult in Palestine is that to ever achieve any political stability, someone will have to find a way to disarm hundreds of autonomous terrorist cells. In the interim Palestinians will suffer from their own people's decision to engage in terrorism as opposed to say passive resistance which would immediately neutralize the IDF. It is truly tragic that it is the very terrorist cells that prevent peace that fuel the endless cycles of violence that only serve to make Palestinians and Israelis completely equal in one sense-and that is in their inability to stop terrorism from killing their civilians.

"Arab Muslims do not live in peace in Israel. An article in the Globe and Mail - Jan 27, 2007 - points out that the number of Israeli Arabs seeking refugee status (and being granted it) in Canada has increased substantially over the past 5 years. These people are living in a state that is run by and for the benefit of a group to which they do not belong - Jews. It is widely acknowledged that successive Israeli governments have publicly fretted over the threat that the Arabs would out-breed the Jews and "democratic" Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. Consider what would happen if the government of Canada started to publicly worry that one demographic group might outbreed the other." I would like to address the above subjective personal opinion stated by Higgly and expose its inaccuracy and point out that his decision to infer that Arab Muslims do not libve in peace because Israeli Arabs choose to leave Israel is subjectively fabricated. Let us talk facts. Unlike Jews in any Muslim country that exists today, Arab Israelis are citizens of the Israel with equal legal rights. This is precisely why the Israeli constitution guarantees the government serve Arab Israelis in Arabic, allow them to elect Arab members of the Knesset (parliament) and why the Israeli courts have enforced Arab Israeli legal rights time and time again in decisions. The political and legal involvement of the Arab Israeli populationevidenced through national and municipal elections is public fact. It is also public fact that Arab Israelis in fact do live in peace and are not subject to crimes or attacks by Jewish Israelis. Higgly has invented that. The crime rates, charges and sentences for Arab Israelis compared ti Jewish Israelis is public knowledge and I now challenge Higgly to produce evidence that indicates Arab Israelis are being attacked by Jewish Israelis and not living peacefully. In fact Arab citizens of Israel run the political and administrative affairs of their own municipalities and advance their political nd interests through their elected representatives in the Knesset, It is a fact Arab Israelis have also held various government positions, including that of deputy minister. Israel's constitution unlike any constitution in any Muslim country states that the Israeli state will "ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex" and guarantees "freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture". That is precisely what has been upheld in Israeli courts and this is precisely why Israel has very clear anti-discrimination laws which Arab Israelis have invoked. What Higgly also will ignore in his Israel bad bad bad subjective personal remarks is that since the creation of the State of Israel, the legal and social status of Arab Israeli by law has enabled them to be guaranteed equal rights for women and prohibition of polygamy and child marriage which is NOT the case in the Muslim world. It is again a legal and social fact that Israel unlike the Muslim countries of the Middle East and elsewhere politically and legally guarantees Arab/Muslim and all women equality in rights and personal freedoms, including the right to vote and be elected to local and national office. Now let us talk why Arab Israelis leave Israel and address Higgly's unsubstantiated fabrication that they are leaving because they can't live in peace. There is a very real distinction that has resulted between Arab and Jewish citizens as a direct result of the Palestinian conflict and terrorism. It has to do with civic duty. Since 1949, because Israel has been under contionual attack from Muslim/Arab terrorists and/or hostile Arab nations it requires all its citizens to join the armed forces from 18 to 65 and be on reserve after serving a compulsory period of service. Therefore the entire country is enlisted and when one goes for a job interview if one does not have military security clearance they can not get a job. Since Arab citizens have been exempted from compulsory service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) many for obvious reasons will not join the IDF. As a result without the military security clearance, when they go to get jobs, they will be rejected not because they are Arab, but because they have no military security clearance. This is precisely why so many Arab Israelis leave. For them trying to find work as engineers, doctors, professionals is limited. So for Higgly to suggest they are fleeing violence is b.s. Now why do Arab Israelis apply for "refuge" status? Because they make the legal arguement they are being discriminated against when trying to get jobs. In fact those Arab Israelis who join the armed forces, get jobs and do not encounter the problem of lacking security clearance. For that matter non Arab Israelis including Jewish Israelis who choose NOT to serve in the IDF face the exact same kind of problem when looking for work and trying to be hired. Someone should explain to Higgly that the no. 1 country these days for refugee applicants in Canada is Mexico and the top ten countries where refugee applicants apply from when coming to Canada do NOT correspond to the top 10 refugee producing countries of the world. Someone should explain to Higgly that the method in which our refugee determination system is being used by applicants to come to Canada can not automatically assume the applicants are in fact refugees or for that matter the findings of the Refugee Board of Canada are stating Arab Israelis are being subject to violence. In fact the Refugee Board decisions have been inconsistent for Arab Israelis and many are rejected as not having been discriminated against because of their ethnicity or political views but having been treated the same way as any Israeli Jew or Muslim or Christian or anyone else who has no military security clearance. That said no it would not be easy being an Arab in Israel during times of conflict the same reason it was so difficult for the Japanese in Canada and the U.S. during world war two. However unlike the US and Canada, Israel has never rounded up and arrested its Arab Israelis during its wars andthen placed them in camps like the US and Canada did. Now let us explain why Arab Israelis are exempted from military service. This exemption is allowed precisely out of consideration for their family, religious and cultural affiliations with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world, given the on-going conflict. This does not mean they are not encouraged to volunteer for military service and the fact is Arab Israelis, Druze and Circassian and Christian Israelis have and continue to join the IDF. Let us also address Higgly's fabrication that Arab Israelis are being abused by "Jews" in Israel which is anti-semitic in that it singles out only the "Jews" in Israel and suggests they discriminate against Arab Israelis because they are "Jews". Israeli society is made up of different population groups coexisting in the framework of a single democratic state. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-lingual society, with vey high levels of informal segregation patterns. Contrary to Higgly's attempts to define Israeli society as Jew v.s. Arab, this is bul-shit. Within the Jewish community there are complicated divisions between Ashkanazi (Eurpean Jews) and Tsfardic (Arab Jews). There is a division between Jews who came from Latin America, Russia, the US, Britain, etc. Jews speak many different languages and have a wide variety of religious believes ranging from extreme ultra-orthodox Jews who do not believe in the State of Israel (because they believe the Messiah must return first) to absolute atheists on the other side. When Ethiopian Jews came to Israel, they were discriminated against not because of their skin colour but because they were not considered "Jews" by the Rabbinical council. This same Rabbinical council may not consider myself, a Reform Jew with very little traditional Jewish religious practice and who ressembles more of a Unitarian-Bhuddist-Taoist-agnostic like modern non religious Jew, to be Jewish either. Religious contravery over who is a Jew still exists as do the cultural differences between Jews depending on their countries of origin. Jews face conflicts between other Jews within Israeli society. For that matter within Arab Israel society there are divisions also depending on how Arab Israelis practice their religions whether they be Christian or Muslim. So while groups are not separated by official policy, as is the case here in Canada or in any other democractic multi-cultural society different sectors within the society have chosen to lead a segregated life-style, maintaining their strong cultural, religious, ideological and/or ethnic identity, while others do not. It is a fact that the vast majority of Arab Israelis have chosen to maintain their distinct identity and not assimilate. Their community's separate existence is constitutionally, legally and politically guaranteed through the use of Arabic, Israel's second official language; a separate Arab/Druze school system; Arabic literature, theater and mass media; and maintenance of independent Muslim, Druze and Christian denominational courts which adjudicate matters of personal status. Of course relations between Israel's Arab and Jewish citizens are directly affected by terrorism and the Palestinian conflict. For that matter this Palestinian conflict hinders relations between Arab Muslim Israelis and Arab Christian Israelis and Israeli Druze. In Israel there is a Citizen Accord Forum, which tries to address relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel. It includes well over 500 active volunteers. Is Israel a perfect society? No. Are there problems between Israelis? Yes. However I wish to make this perfectly clear. Arabs in Israel enjoy a way of life no non Muslim enjoys in Muslim countries that is a fact. I also wish to make it crystal clear that for Higgly to fabricate that Israeli Jews are preventing Arab Israelis from living in peace as he did, is a complete lie and I challenge him to prove his statement or issue an apology and admit he fabricated his statement.

It is my personal opinion that the following 3 comments from Higgly can be construed as anti-semetic in that they make references to Jews but had nothing to do with the debate being discussed; 1-Of course people like you 2-Your last name must be Jabotinsky or Sharon 3-Samuel was a Jew. I also wish to state that Higgly made the following 3 comments clearly using emotion to suggest Israel is treacherous; 1-“Instead it (Israel) attacked Jordanian troops and tried to take Jerusalem. Treachery! 2-“That outpost was there (placed by Israel) to keep Palestinian Arabs in their refugee camps so they would not go back into Israel. Treachery!” 3-“How did Sharon reward them (Lebanon) in the 1980s? Treachery!” then stated to me; 4-“Your constant attempts to depict the British as some sort of treacherous’ I would like to state that the above comments by Higgly indicate he does one thing then criticizes others for doing what he does. The contradictions and inconsistencies are self-explanatory. I should also point out for the record, that Higgly has projected his exercise of calling countries such as Israel treacherous onto me. I do not engage in such a device when I debate or respond. That is a method of expression specific to Higgly and I think it is unfair for him to suggest I have engaged in what he does. My remarks as to Britain speak for themselves.

o.k. so as I understand it Higgly made the following comments to me; 1-Oh Rue. You're so cute when you're angry 2-Your last name must be Jabotinsky or Sharon. 3-Just because they were applied to Jews is not important. 4-You think like a two year old. Unfortunately so did the Zionists 5-You will embue just about anybody with ultimate authority as long as they agree with you. 6-Everything you say is based on the incorrect notion that all of Palestine was somehow the property of the Jews. Although you cling to this illusion desperately, you cannot make it true 7-It's bad enough that you can't think straight and the following comment to JBG; 8-Judging by a lot of your previous posts, you also do not have the education. and then states about me again; 9-.....the above (abridged) post contains irrational allegations of criminal behaviour and/or intent and 10. Rue tries to turn debate into thought crime by stretching, exaggerating, and distorting the words of the other party. Then as I understand it he "reported" me using the following remark; 11.This debate will continue once a ruling on Rue's behaviour has been issued. Because Rue resorts to these accusations on a routine basis, I am also asking the administrator to suspend Rue until a decision has been reached. So as I understand it, Higgly feels I should be suspended/censored but for my responses to his comments in debate, but his remarks should be simply ignored. It appears this is the same selective process Higgly has used to ignore any references to history that do not back up his opinions in the above debate. I now note Higgly has ignored responding to any of the historic points raised and is trying to avoid having to debate me. Oh well. By the way if anyone cares, I have reported all of the above comments Higgly made about me to my cats who are Zionists but act older then 2 year old children. They are very mature cats.

In response to Higgly; 'Illegal? (the unilateral creation of TransJordan by Britain) Under whose law and why?'. International law and because Britain like any country in the world at the time, had no legal right to unilaterally seize land and declare a nation. It was also declared illegal by the league of Nations. "Where does it say that the Jewish homeland will be all of Palestine? You make this mistake over and over ad nauseum - you assume that the Balfour Declaration and everything that came after promised the entire Palestinian mandate to the Jews. It did not." No Higgly you make the mistake over and over again as you just did trying to pretend historic fact does not exist when it does not suit you. The League of Nations mandate stated clearly that Palestine where the Jewish homeland was to be created was what is today Jordan (East Paletsine) and Israel (West Palestine). The Belfour Declaration is an entirely different document. The mandate can be found on the inter-net. Your choosing to pretend it does not exist is absurd. "(Britain) Liied to whom? " The documents released by the British government, in particular the papers of Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, and the High Commissioner to Palestine, all evidence the British deliberately chose to mislead and lie to the Leage of Nations. "Weitzmann was less than candid with Feisal and hid from him the true nature of his plans - to take all of Palestine for a Zionist state. " The above comment is a n tter fabrication on your part. It is an historiuc fact that the agreement between Weitzman and Feisal was written out in full and signed by both sides. "In any case, the Jordanians, including Feisal's successor, Abdullah, kept their word. " Again you are absolutely wrong. Abdullah had nothing to do with the agreement between Feisal and Weitzman. Later on, he did enter into an agreement with Britain not any Jewish people, that he would give up any rights to West Palestine. "Of course people like you will tell us time and again that the Arabs just hate the Jews, in spite of this generous accommodation from Feisal." I have never at any time suggested or stated that Arabs just hate Jews. Your coded words slurring me as a Jew "People like you" is cowardly. If you want to call me a Jew say it to me. Unlike Figleaf I won't report you. "The British were promising the Arabs a pan-Arab nation at the same time as they were making promises to Weitzmann and the Zionists. " At no time did Britain ever promise Weitzman anything as the released documents from Churchill, Eden, the British High Commissioner to Palestine, all evidence. The British were clear fromt he get go that they were completely against giving any credence to a Jewish state under any circumstance. This is precisely why they came into conflict with the League of Nations. "Palestine has always been the territory between the Jordan River and the sea. You keep trying to expand it - a good Zionist, true to form. " No, Palestine was always and has always been where Jordan and Israel and for that matter portions of Syria and Lebanon are today. That has nothing to do with me or Zionists it has to do with historic fact and geography and is precisely why the Leage of Nations mandate described it as such. "Your last name must be Jabotinsky or Sharon." Ooh some more Jew baiting. Figgy should I report himn? "Every country has immigration quotas." Britain was not legally mandated to create or impose quotas. It had no legal authority to set up immigration quotas. Neither did Transjordan. Neither Britain or Transjordan had the legal right through sovereignty to create and impose immigration quotas against Jews. The British did so illegally and unilaterally and in express contradiction of international law and the League of Nations mandate. "It is a fact of life." Another coded reference to Jews should know their place in life and not question it right Higgly? Yassuh Massuh Higgly. "Just because they were applied to Jews is not important." Right, Jews are not important. I mean what next, someone might think they have the right to exist.. " It is frankly bizarre that you would expect everybody living in Palestine just to move out of the way so that the Zionists could do whatever they pleased. " Right. Its bizarre for Jews to want self-determination. They should know their place in life right Higgly. Besides Jews aren't important. Why would 2000 years of discrimination make Jews want to live in their own countr....no that would be bizarre. So would wanting a country because in the Muslim world, Jews were not allowed to be citizens or own land...no bizarre. Wanting to leave Europe or to escape pogroms or leave after the holocaust....bixarre The expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab countries and having 700,000 head to Israel because no one else would take them....bizarre All those countries refusing to take in Jews forcing them to head to Israe... bizarre. I mean there you have it. Jews are bizarre for fleeing persecution and wanting peace and security and self-determination. Those unimportant Jews should just shut up and accept their lot in life. "You think like a two year old. Unfortunately so did the Zionists." Right. Jews are bizarre for wanting to be free of persecution and anyone who thinks people who suffer and want to be free is a two year old and Zionists are all 2 year olds. Of course you Higgly for stating thi show incredible maturity. "Samuel was a Jew." Yes The High Commissioner to Palestine was a Jew. So what is your point? Churchill was Christian? Anthony Eden was Christian. Feisal and Abdullah were Muslims. So? Let's call you out on this Higgly. How does Samuel being a Jew in any way have anything to do with the British policy of preventing an Israeli state from coming about? Samuel carried out exactly what he was required to do as a British civil servant. He carried out their mandate to prevent Israel from coming about. So what does his being a Jew have to do with it? You are so typical of anti-semites. You throw in someone's Jewish religion as a racist slur. It has no relevance at all to the historic developments that led to all of the above. "Lebanon and Syria were French territory." Lebanon and Syriawere colonies imposed by the French as part of an agreement with Britain who sliced up Iraq and Jordan for themselves. It is precisely these unilateral colonial divisions by both the British and French which led to the present day conflict. "OK. So anything Feisal agreed to became moot. What's your point?" The point is you choose to ignore the historic origins of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "Again, you are proceeding uder the misguided assumption that all of Palestine was somehow owing to the Jews. It was not and it never promised to them in its entirety. " No it is in fact you continue to pretend the League of Nations mandate which states the above does not exist. "So what? Palestine was under British rule. In any case, Passfield was re-affirmed by the United Nations when it too partitioned Palestine." The UN never partitioned Palestine. In fact when it proposed a second Palestinian state and a Jewish state, the Arab League disagreed. Its mandate then expired. The border that then came about with Israel was not partitioned by the UN - it came about by de facto possession because of a war. The war was initiated byt he Arab League. The pre-1967 borders of Israel came about from war not a UN partition. "Everything you say is based on the incorrect notion that all of Palestine was somehow the property of the Jews." I have never stated at any time that it is my opinion that all of Palestine is the property of Jews. What I have done is to show that historically, Palestine consisted of Jordan and Israel and in fact today, what we are talking about is the creation of a second Palestinian state. I also call Higgly out on it, because time and time as in the next quote below, he pretends Jordan is not part of Palestine and should not be considered when discussing the Palestinian conflict as constituting a Palestinian state. "The British created Jordan as a Palestinian State? What sheer nonsense! Has anybody told them? Jordan was created as a Hashemite kingdom, Rue. " Jordan was carved out of East Palestine that is an hostoric fact. Its population was created by flooding it with migrant Arabs from all over the Middle East while at the same time restricting any immigration of Jews. The fact that the British set up a puppet monarchy and chose to call it a Hashemite Kingdom (Beduins) doesn't change the geographicl location, who lives there and where they came from. The vast majority of Jordans were Palestinian or were encouraged to migrate into Jordan by the British from other Arab locations. Few if any were Hashemite or Beduin. To pretend Jordan is not a Palestinian nation is absurd. Tell that to the Palestinians who live there was well as the PLO and Hamas. It will be new to them. It will also be news to the current King who has stated in numerous speeches that he acknowledges the Palestinian nature of his country as did his father. It will also be news to his Palestinian wife. "The Jordanians made a treaty with Golda Meir not to attack Israel's borders during the 1948 war and it kept that promise." Absolutely wrong. It deliberately and openly violated that agreement History shows the attacks were initiated from and led from and by Jordan not Israel. "In fact it was Israel that attacked Jordanian territory." The facts show the Arab League initiated attacks from Jordan and Israel then and only then responded. It never initiated any attacks or the war of independence. "There was never any promise nor intention to turn all of Palestine over to the Zionists. " The League of Nations mandate which exists and can be found on the inter-net can be read in its full text and is clear on what it promised. "The Balfour Declaration talks about a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. It does not say all of Palestine will be turned over to the Jews." So? Why do you pretending history should only commence from the Balfour declaration onwards? Why the selectivity? "Read it as many times as you like, Rue. That's just what it says. " No one is debating what the Balfour declaration said. What I am stating is you are deliebrately choosing to ignore the League of Nations mandate on Palestine and how the British violated it and illegally created Transjordan out of 80% of Palestine, and then and only then came up with the Balfour declaration. "The Balfour declaration was the result of talks between the British government and Weitzmann. " The Balfour declaration was the result of unilateral British action to take 80% of Palestine, create Tran-Jordan, then suggest two enclaves one for Jews and one for Muslims to be governed by the British. This was not proposed by the Leage uf Nations nor was it the result of anything Weitzman suggested or agreed to and for you to suggest Weitzman created it is a deliberate misrepresentation. It was a unilateral initiative of the British in response to the League of Nations calling on Britain to dismantle TransJordan and cease and desist in its anti-Jewish immigration quotas and attempts to prevent a Jewish homeland. That of course is the part of history Higgly skips over. "The Arabs never had any say in the matter" Absolute and utter bull-shit. Not only did the Arab League have a say, but Abdullah, Feisal and many other Arab Leaders constantly had in-put and pressured Eden and Churchill as evidenced by their documents. "Your constant attempts to depict the British as some sort of treacherous, anti-Israel power is extraordinary. " The actions of the British have been proven by the very words and documents of Eden, Churchill, and their government papers now released and public record. As much as Higgly would like to suggestI am attempting to suggest this I am not. The decision of the British to prevent a Jewish homeland is an historic fact evidenced by their own documents and words....anyone can find them on the inter-net and read them. Suggesting I am creating them is absurd. For that matter at no time did I call the British treacherous. If you notice, such name calling is Higgly's m.o. not mine. What I stated is that the British were against the creation of a Jewish state and did everything in their power to stop one from happening including lying to the League of Nations and then unilaterally and illegally seizing 80% of Palestine, creating TransJordan and then flooding it with Arab migrants from outside the area. I have stated this is now been proven iby their own documents and words. It is not something I made up or need to create. "Were it not for the British just where would Israel be today?" If it were not for the British, and for that matter the FRench and Germans,Israel would have created a state in Palestine with the assistane of King Feisal and the conflict as we know it would not exist. "Incredible though it may seem, Israel and its founders were the original terrorists in the Middle East." Right here was never any terror or violence in the Middle East until those darned Jews came back. Talk about revising history to suit one's anti-semitic agenda. By the way my historic references for anything I stated come from the League of Nations, United Nations, and the papers and documents from the British government. You can find them yourselves on the web-site. They are public record.

I guess it was him being a professor of history which cause me to think he is a historian. That and the fact he received his Phd Doctorate in history. Maybe also because he write books about history. That being said, Morris being a professor of History, having a doctorate in history and being a published author of history, you're right, he's not a historian. He used to be. He made a deliebrate choice to cease being an historian and call him self a "new historian", i.e., someone who feels the academic definition and protocol of an historian is not acceptable. He not I chose to reject the traditional role of an historian, and call himself a "new historian". That in his terms means, he no longer wants to be an historian. As he has stated, he feels it necessary to be selective and only use portions of history since he says he wants to advocate political views and wishes to limit his use of history to only those portions of history he feels are relevant. That is the point I am making. He may still be in the faculty of history and have tenure, but he himself chooses to distance himself from the role of an historian and makes that crystal clear when asked. He is to history what a doctor is to science who states he now will not use the metholody of empirical testing but simply base his conclusions on personal opinions. That is my point. I do not doubt he got a Ph.d in Hisory and was hired and still works in the history faculty. That believe it or not, does not continue to make him an academic historian. It does make him someone who has deliberately rejected the traditional role of an historian and chosen to become a political commentator. Historians like anthropologists, should in fact have no political opinions when they analyze and report.

Oh I will specifically address the Kapitan's words; "A man who has sex exclusively with females and at least once with a girl, that would make him a heterosexual pedophile". Pedophiles don't have sex with children of only one sex. A pedophile who has sex with a child of the opposite sex is not a heterosexual pedophile. There is no such thing. You have invented that term. They are simply defined as pedophiles. They aren't hetero-sexual unless they engage in sex with the opposite sex with an adult. "Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation." Of course it is. It is the sexual orientation and attraction to children. "If that same guy has sex with children of boths sexes, that makes him a bisexual pedophile." No you are absolutely wrong. He is a pedophile. The gender of his victims are not adults and therefore classifying the sexual act with the child as one that occurs between adults is absolutely wrong. "Sorry for the lack of clarification, it just makes sense that when sexual orientation is not specified, heterosexuality, the only significantly sized sexual orientation amongst humans would be assumed." No it makes no sense for you to keep repeating that an adult who has sex with a child can be defined using the same clinical term used for an adult who has sex with an adult. It not only makes no sense, but shows your deliberately choosing to ignore medical terminology and continue to repeat concepts that not only make no sense but equate sex with adults and sex with children as being the same thing. "So far I've seen homosexual defined as someone who is attracted to people of the same sex and defined as one who practices homosexuality (Oxford and WordWeb)." That is the point and which exposes you Kapitan. Even in the definitions you deliberately play games with, not one of them suggests being a homo-sexual means having sex with a child. "Claiming that some people could have abnormal conditions is not discriminatory." Good now that we have that straight (excuse the pun) if I say I think you are abnormal because of your insistence on defining gays as pedophiles we know I am not discriminating against you. "Dwarves have an abnormal condition and I don't discriminate against them." How Christian of you. Might it penetrate that brain of yours to ponder that if a dwarf were to have sex with a child they would be a pedophile and we would not suggest their being a dwarf and there being a pedophile can be used inter-changeably? Is the fact the dwarf having sex with a pedophile because of his lack of height? Um uh um uh. "Again this comes down to how we define 'normal'. " No it comes down to how YOU define norma. Don't speak for me. I have told you and I will say it again, unlike you, I don't go around defining and imposing my concepts of normal on anyone unless they commit a crime or hurt themselves, others or children. "Let's avoid clinical definitions and stick to the dictionary, " "I see homosexuals as not conforming to the norms of society..." Well I see them as conforming to the norms of society and so does the legal system. So your opinion otehr then being yours, really is besides the point. It is not what you feel or think. "I won't discriminate against them." Of course you do every time you open your moth and refer to them as abnormal. Get real. "I should not be expected to cater to them." Has any gay person asked you to start a catering service and serve food at their parties? I find that hard to believe. They probably sense your hostility and wouldn't trust you near any open food. "Gays should be expected to live in a heterosexual world and not expect others to give them special treatment because they're gay." Next it will be non-Catholics should live in a Catholic world and not expect others to give them special treatment because they are non Catholic? That is your point is it not? More to the point, how is being treated without discrimination asking for special treatment? What you are in fact saying is, you consider the right to call gays abnormal and treat them as being sinful is normal treatment and any suggestion they not be treated this way is "special treatment". Your comments again manifest how you want to discriminate against gays and then suggest if you are not allowed to, this would be giving gays special treatment. Hah. "If someone chooses to have an active sex life with adults or children of the same or opposite sex, they still have to take local laws and society into consideration." Do you even stop to think before you write? Uh hello, being gay, consensual sex between adults of the same sex is not against the law and no two gay adults don't need to get your permission. "..society should not be expected to change nor to cater to those choosing alternative lifestyles." Stop hiding behind the word society. You do not speak on behalf of society. You speak on behalf of yourself. Your above comment in fact really states; I should not be expected to change my attitudes and opinions about gays". Got news for you, I could care less what you think, just stop trying to pretend you speak on behalf of the law or society, you don't. "To summarize, I trust Doctors in linguistics over Dr. Sex-pert in terms of definitions and no, I do not discriminate when I consider homosexuals abnormal; using a very inclusive definition of 'normal'." To summarize the above, you have made it clear you will ignore any medical literature youd on't agree with and will continue to be intolerant of and spead slurs against gays and insist your personal and subjective use of the word "normal" is legal and socially accepted. Got news for you. You are a dinosaur whose views are no longer mainstream. That makes you abnormal using your definition. It makes you a social deviant. Imagine that. You are a yegads...can we say it out loud a "homo-phobe". You are an abnormal deviant. A Homo-phobe! I think they should keep you away from gays!!!! You might molest them!!!!!!!!!!

Teleoiphiles who are people who have sex with adultd and then have sex with children, are not hetero-sexual or homo-sexual when they engage in sex with children. The sex or gender of the child does not mean the sex is hetero-sexual or homo-sexual, the fact that it is with a child, makes it pedophile. The game the Kapitan and many of his ilk play is that because a pedophile has sex with someone of the same gender he can call it homo-sexual. The choice to use the word homo-sexual is deliberate and is intended to blur the distinction between homo-sexual and pedophile, no more no less. The irony is that 80% of child molestation victims are girls, molested by men. Of the 20% of children who are boys, the vast majority are molested by men who claim to be hetero-sexual not gay. The point is you are not gay or straight when you engage in sex with a child-you are a pedophile-someone whose sex preference is for a child. Its the age difference and lack of physical development not the gender that fuels the pedophile and the Kapitan can continue to feign confusion and ignorance with the definitions but they have been placed in his face so now he looks silly pretending he can't understand the age thing. It is the inability to have intimacy with an adult that fuels the pedophile. It is the need to have a power imbalance and identify with the child that fuels the pedophile. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction to males or females. Children are not sexually developed. Their bodies are asexual - apoint the Kapitan continues to pretend he can not understand and is precisely why the Catholic church can not deal with its pedophile priests and homo-sexual priests and thinks they are the same. I quoted Lutheran doctors to make only one obvious point-that there are many Christians, and for that matter Jews, and everyone else, who do not follow the Kapitan's commandments including Catholics. Would the Kapitan tell me because I am a Jew, I must follow the Old Testament's suggestion and stone gays? Some of us try up-date ourselves. You think it would be alright if I just through marshmellows at gays instead or maybe force them to listen to Jerry Falwell taped lectures instead? One of the reasons I find this line of posts important to challenge is for this reason. Gay children, i.e., children who know they are gay, but then get molested by an adult, tend to blame themselves and say if they were not gay they would not have been molested and they asked for it precisely because the Kapitans of the world have made them believe being gay and pedophilia are the same. Isn't it ironic we get into this b.s. debate about homo-sexuals being pedophiles when the vast majority of victims are girls by men. Could it be some of us men like to change the subjec to blame gays so they don't have to look at their own behaviourt? Look how ee have sexualized children in our culture..... that to me is the issue not slurring gays. Its about how we as adults have chosen to sexualize children in our culture or look the other way when we see it being done, even those of us with children. I mean we know its not right, but we sort of let the culture of the day condition us into tolerating it. I am not sure what you do when a six year old girl wants to wear make up or finger nail polish. I think that is for each parent to decide. For me I don't want children to think their bodies are dirty, I just don't want them to feel pressured into thinking they need make up, nails, tight pants, belly button shirts, when they are just kids and should just be left alone to have fun. I leave that to other parents to wrestle with. Its a tough one. The pressure on young girls of 6,7,8 and 9 to be sexual is ridiculous. It used to be the modeling agencies were oh so sensitive and stopped at 12 but down the age goes. Gee. ever wonder why Lindsay Lohan gets so much press? Could it be she still looks like a 12 year old girl but with tits? No its her brilliant mind.

Time and time again Higgly has misstated the historical facts as to the origins of Jordan and its role in creating the present day problems in the Middle East. I will once again state the historic facts Higgly ignores and challenge anyone to state they are incorrect and why. Transjordan was created illegally by the British out of 80% of Palestine to prevent a Jewish homeland. In fact the League of Nations had a mandate to create a Jewish country in Palestine (now Jordan and Israel) and Britain lied and said they would carry out this mandate for the League in return for being allowed to administer Palestine. That is a fact documented and evidenced in thousands of British documents. What is also a fact is that Feisal Hussein, King of Iraq and Syria in fact agreed to a Jewish state in Palestine in 1918. He in fact met with Dr. Weizmann in Amann, Jordan in 1918 and Paris in 1919) and reached an agreement on mutual aid which was to be conditional on the implementation of British promises to the Arabs. As a result of this planned alliance between Arabs and Jews planning to create to kingdoms that would help one another, the French and British panicked thinking they would no longer be able to control the Middle East and create their own colonies. So the French expelled Hussein from Syria in 1920 and then the British incited other Arab leaders to turn on Hussein’s agreement with the Jews of Palestine. The mandate referred to creating a homeland in what is now Israel and Jordan. In the early 1900’s Palestine (Jordan and Israel today) had about 600,000 people. The League mandate envisioned 12 million Jews joining 50,000 Jews already there and living peacefully with 550,000 non Jews. The British published the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and were specifically given a mandate from the League to facilitate Jewish migration to Palestine. The British then lied and did the exact opposite. In fact in 1920, the British created Jewish Immigration quotas to restrict Jewish immigration. They also arranged with the French to facilitate illegal Arab immigration along the border of Lebanon and Syria with West Palestine ( now Israel) allowing free immigration of Arabs into these areas. In fact the British deliberately began encouraging Arab migration into Palestine to prevent the creation of a Jewish homeland and this is precisely why in 1921, Britain’s High Commissioner Herbert Samuel openly challenged the right of Jews to a homeland. In 1921, T. E. Lawrence advised Winston Churchill that Emir Feisal, Abdullah's brother, had agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Palestine in return for being allowed to control a kingdom of Iraq and what is today Jordan. Feisal in fact did not want Western Palestine or what today is Israel in return for the Eastern part of Palestine and Iraq. Despite this, Churchill in 1992, instructed the British to prevent any Jewish homeland from coming about in West Palestine. In 1928 on British orders, Eastern Palestine (now Jordan) was in fact closed to Jewish settlement, and the Arab Legion was placed by the British to assure no Jews could get in and to also facilitate continued Arab migration to East Palestine. In fact, from the years from 1890 to 1945 about 500,000 Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi and Eastern Palestine Arabs settled into West Palestine based on a deliberate, planned policy by the British and French to prevent a Jewish homeland. The British in 1929 (Shaw Commission), 1930 (Passfield White Paper) made it clear they would prevent Jewish migration. The British passed the Cultivator’s Ordinance in 1933 that gave land away free in Western Palestine to Arabs. In 1934 the British began deducting “estimated” (subjectively created) numbers of what they claimed were illegal Jewish immigrants from the quotas they otherwise had created for Jews allowed into Palestine. In fact in 1936 the Conference of Protestant and Catholics in America accused the British government of illegally partitioning Palestine and creating Trans-Jordan, and stated what the British did was illegal and that the Palestine territory should be opened back up to Jewish migrants. In this same year Arab riots broke out organized by Nazi Germany. In 1937 the Palestine Royal Commission, recognizing that Arab majority was building, they recommends partition Western Palestine a second time into two states one Jewish, one Arab. Britain ignored this. Then 1939 the British Government White Paper enforced new, restrictions on Jewish migration. As a result on the same year The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations protested the Britain's "White Paper" in August. Four out of the seven members indicated they would strike down the restrictive White Paper as a violation of the League Mandate of Palestine. WWII then intervened in the few days just before the League was to review the matter. The meeting was to have taken place on September 8, 1939, but Germany marched on Poland September 1, and Britain declared war on Germany September 3. Higgly also skipped over the fact that BEFORE the 1947 UN General Assembly decision to partition the remaining West portion of Palestine into a second Arab Palestinian state and a Jewish state, King Abdullah proposed sending the Arab Legion to conquer West Palestine. What Higgly also deliberately ignores is that when the UN’s mandate expired, and Jews and Arabs were left in Palestine with no solution, Labanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt sent troops to Jordan with the clear intent to invade and take over all of then West Palestine. I will say this out and out. Higgly deliberately misrepresents the history of Jordan because of his biases against the creation of the state of Israel. The fact is Jordan played an active role in fighting Israel and is in fact a Palestinian Arab state created by the British as a puppet monarchy and which then turned on its Palestinians and expelled millions of them when they tried to Overthrow King Hussein of Jordan in the Black Sabbath uprising. Jordan fought against Israel in 1949 and 1967. It is a reluctant ally of Israel for the same reason Egypt is. Both countries fear Palestinian terrorists will turn on their nations as well. No more no less, despite Higgly’s pathetic attempts to revise history and once again repeat the Israel bad bad bad mantra.

OK. How's this for trivia? Jordan and Egypt have had peace treaties with Israel for decades now. Are they not Arabs? Have they attacked Israel since signing those treaties? Why do you keep demonizing and scapegoating all Arabs? Here are a few other Arab countries that have not attacked Israel for decades: Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Dubai, Algeria..." Why don't you read what actually goes on in these countries and what their governments say about Israel before you once again shoot off at the mouth with simplistic concepts. The fact that these countries do not attack Israel in a conventional war completely ignores the terrorist activities that go on from within these countries. Two distinct issues you of course skip over in your usual attempt to present things as black and white. In your world none of the people in these countries engage in anti-semitism and anti-Israel rhetoric simply because these countries have not sent any troops to war. Oh how simple. There now. Let's skip what is presented on t.v., in their newspapers, on their radio and by their goevrnment representatives at conferences. I will respond again and take my time specifically showing how Higgly once again misrepresented the history between Jordan and Israel to suit his own political agenda of Israel bad bad bad.

Get it straight Benny Morris is not an historian. No faculty of any university recognizes him as an historian. He is simply someone born Jewish who hates himself for being Jewish and has a political agenda to be anti-Israel which is his right. But he is not an historian. He is someone with a clear political opinion and agenda. He has no academic credentials or credibility as an historian and his writings clearly demonstrate such an anti-Israel bias that they are simply political opinion pieces. Historians when they report the past do not revise what happens to suit their political philosophies. They simply report what happened. The more neutral the information, the more likely it is from an historian as opposed to someone with political opinions making in fact political commentary.