Rue

There is nothing scientific or respectable about it. To understand where this comes from you have to haave paid attention to a series of articles run in the Iranian government controlled press starting back in 2004. The series of articles has; 1-denied the holocaust happened 2-stated it was impossible to use zyclon gas 3-the numbers of people claimed to have been killed was a lie 4-zionists assisted in sending Jews to their death 5-the holocaust is part of a world zionist conspiracy to justify dominating the world 6-there is nothing wrong with denying the holocaust 7-even if it existed, it is not an excuse for allowing a state of Israel 8-all Jews, not just Zionist supporting Jews or Israelis are evil and involved in world conspiracies. After you read the on-going series of articles since 2004, you then have to also keep in mind Iranian television regularly runs t.v. shows from Hezbollah t.v. (financed by the Iranian government), Syrian t.v. and Egyptian t.v. that depict Jews as evil, stealing the eyes of Palestinian children, engaged in world conspiracies, spreading diseases, assassinating people, manipulating governments, controlling Hollywood and the banks, and my favourite using the blood of non Jewish children (not just Muslims but Christians too) to make matzoh for Passover. All of the above is passed off as scholarly and presented by Professors and noted experts and most importantly by Shiite Muslim clerics also quoting the Koran to state that Jews are infidel and it says in the Koran they must be defeated in a world war along with Christians. With that context in mind, understand the current leader/President of Iran was chosen from the clerical council because he i9s a thug and prescribes to this. Why does Iran engage in this. It is simple. While China signed a huge 200 billion liquid gas deal with Iran in 2004 and is its numebr one benefactor for the next 25 years guaranteeing no one can touch Iran now, none of the money is filtering its way to the common Iranian person. The government's strangle hold on the petrol industry is preventing any money from being circulated. The rest of the Iranian economy has collapsed as a result of a centralist government that has no clue how to run an econom. In fact the two largest economic activities in Iran outside its petro industrial complex now completely controlled and directed by China, is the sex slave trade and heroin. It is a major conduit of child and female sex slaves being shipped all over the world and it is one of the largest exporters of brown heroin and hash hish. The anti-semitic diatribes are designed to keep peoples' minds off of the goevrnment's own internal economic failures and to justify its imprisonment and torture of thousands of political opponents. This is a government that systematically hunts down and kills or tortures gays, Bahaiis, or women who dare fight for equality and it exterminates the mentally ill. It has placed its Jewish citizens under a house arrest. The latest holocaust symposium is part of an anti-Israel exercise started by the Iranian President, a former terrorist and thug with no economic education and who is a self-proclaimed Muslim cleric. He earlier held a cartoon contest encouraging people from all over the world to draw cartoons as insulting as possible about Jews, in response to the depiction of the Prophet Muhammed in aq Danish newspaper. This is a man who does not distinguish between Jews, Israelis and Zionists. This is a man who represents a government that finances Hamas and Hezbollah and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, as recently as Monday on the President's world-wide web-site. This is a country's whose official foreign policy is to send all Israeli Jews back to Europe and refers to Israel as Qods, and who does not believe there should be a state of Israel under any circumstance and at one point called on all Arabs to engage in a holy war to wipe it out. On Saturday, he met with the Hamas leader and called on Hamas to continue its battle until Israel was exterminated and Qods taken back. This is a man and country whose vision is to create a Muslim theocracy arcoss Africa, Asia and then into Europe and who sees the West as the infidel. Israel and Jews, are but the tip of the ice-berg in this man's war. Next comes anyone Christian or non Muslim. Interestingly the kind of people invited to this symposium on the holocaust are all notoroious anti-semites including David Duke the former head of the KKK. The President has deliberately invited the usual anti-Jewish, Jews are evil racists to the symposium. He also invited 4 ultra-orthodox Jews, beause ultra-orthodox Jews do not believe Israel as a state should exist. These 4 idiot Rabbiahs now realize they are being used and have said the holocaust existed but it is a bit too late. Allegedly 30 holocaust survivors will be given 5 minutes each to say on the inter-net what happened to them. Make no mistake there is nothing scientific going on. This is another circus display by a lunatic. Interestingly Iranian students attempted a demonstration yesterday calling for his removal and were quickly attacked by pro Iranian religious supporters. I think it is safe to say many Iranians may not be buying into this circus but are helpless to do anything at this point.

"That comment was made in response to a comment by ... I forget who ... that the Palestinians already had a home, and that it is called Jordan. I make no apology for the New York comment, nor do I withdraw it. You talk like this, you get it back." It is unfortunate you are not gracious enough to admit when you step over the line. My comment was that TransJordan was created on 78% to 82% of Palestine and is population was Palestinian and it is in fact a Palestinian nation. That Sir is a fact. It is not derogatory and the context it was raised was to point out that the Palestinian nation we are now talking about is in fact a second one. Your attempt now to state New York is to Jews what Jordan is to Palestinians is of course racist and now your latest response is unfortunate. You are well aware New York state was never created by the British specifically as a state for Jews. You know damn well New York State is not a sovereign Jewish state that excludes Muslims from citizenship. The fact that you continue to refuse to differentiate between New York state and the Jews who live in it with Palestinians who are now Jordanian citizens, is dishonest and you know it. Jews in New York and the fact that many live there or in Miami has nothing to do with what we were discussing. It is not germaine because it is not related to the thesis that Palestinians were displaced and do not have a nation. They do, its called Jordan. New York is not a Jewish state. You make the slur only because lots of Jews live there. You make the slur because Mr. Spitzer is a Jew. It has nothing to do with Israel, Palestinian citizenship or the conflicting needs for Palestinian Muslim and Jewish states in Israel and you know it. The fact that you wrote back and contine to try twist these two different issues as being relevant does not cover up or justify your slur. Be a man and either apologize or refrain from slurring Jews when you discuss Israel. Continue with your pathetic comments and you bet I will call you on them. More to the point the Palestinians in Jordan to this day wrestle with their identity and you know it. There are thousands of speeches from the PLO describing Jordan as a Palestinian state. The fact is Transjordan was created by the British by taking 82% of Palestinian land and creating a nation of Palestinian Muslims. That Sir is a fact. It is a fact they allowed huge numbers of Muslims to immigrate to TransJordan prior to its creation but refused to allow Jews in. It is a fact TransJordan excluded all Jews from citizenship. You Sir have been caught red handed letting your ignorance as to Jews and the Palestinian issue which is susinct become blurred. I challenge you to take one thing I said and show how it degrades Muslims as you have Jews. The historic issues I raised at no time insult Palestinians for being Muslim and you know it. Unless Sir you are a Palestinian with emotional attachment to this issue, you have no excuses.

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes. "You missed the point Figleaf. Each genocide, like each snow flake is unique. If you try mash themall together, of course they will all seem the same colour-white. That is why we must take care when we talk about ANY genocide not to compare them to others or try use others to suggest they are not unique or have lesser signiifigance since there have been other genocides. Think about it FigLeaf.... Hmmmm. Well, I have thought about it, and I cannot agree with your suggestion. You are seeking to make a line of thought and discussion taboo because it may give offense. I don't think we can endorse that principle." No that is not what I said Figleaf. I did not say we can't discuss a genocide. Read what I wrote. I said it is not fair to use one genocide to put down another or make the other seem less important. You again missed the point. "Furthermore, there may be legitimate reasons for 'comparing' genocides which ought not to be prohibited. Comparing illnesses is useful in finding ways to eradicate them, and so done sensibly it may be with genocide." You again completely missed the point. Of course we can discuss genocides and compare them no one says we should not but it is all in the context of how we do the comparison. If the purpose of the comparison is to say one is more important then the other, or one is not unqiue or important because others have happened, then that is where I question. I am questioning the context of how comparisons are used. You Figleaf again either completely missed the point or deliberately choose to ignore it. " How for one moment does a genocide in the Ukraine have any relevance to the holocaust? It is not relevant. They are both tragedies. They both saw innocent people die and suffer at the hands of psychotics. Wait! Now you are lumping them together according to similarities: both tragedies, both had innocents suffer ..." No I did not lump them together. I questioned to context for why they were compared in the first place. In my response I pointed out things they have in common but to prove the point that such comparisons were not germaine to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Of course had you understand my original point in the first place, you would understand I have no problems people examining genocides and looking for things in common to learn from. My concern was with using one genocide to lessen the meaning of another or use it as a pretext to put down another genocide and then raise it in a discussion about Israel and Palestine. You again completely missed the point. More to the point pointing out things in common, does not lump them together. "Lumping things together" I would suggest is only a problem if it causes generalizations that are not true and misrepresent the uniqueness of each genocide. My comments were completely respectful to both genocides and make universal descriptions no one would disagree with or take offense to. The fact that you have to ask the question means you just don't get it. I am not sure how to explain it to you other then this. If you are at a funeral for a loved one, and someone stands up during the eulogy for your loved one and goes on and on about someone else who died, and then suggests that the other person's death means your loved one's death is no biig deal because everyone dies, how would you feel? That suggestion is your imputation, not anyone elses statement, so far as I can recall. Well of course its my opinion I never stated otherwise.

"This is an excellent presentation on the USA place in the world and the internal workings of the USA on a macro level." So you enjoyed Lydon Larouche's presentation and I take it you subscribe to his political visions of the world and in particular his belief in numerous conspiracies including the Rockefeller-CIA-Carter axis, or say the attempts of Jews to take over the world and reduce it to the dark ages and of course the CIA conspiracy that caused him to get divorced in 1973. My favourite work from Mr. Larouche is " Kissinger: Politics of Faggotry". Now you know what I really love about Lyndon. I like the fact that he flunked out of college and yet always realized he was a genius. I mean never mind he went from the Socialist Worker's Party (Trotskyite) to the Revolutionary Tendency movement to the Sparacist League to the New Left, to the US Labor Party and then on to the Schiller Institute. That is what geniuses do. They start off as extremist communists and then over the years move to the extreme right in political views completely ending up advocating alleged economic theories diametrically opposed to where they started. You know how else we know Lyndon is a genius? He says so. He tells people he is and they do not question him. So when he expresses his conspiracy theories, people accept them because I mean he is a genius. Of course his incarceration was yet another political conspiracy against him. He never broke any laws. Now then you quote a rambling address that in fact doesn't say anything. Read it again. It says nothing. In fact here is the crux of the address you find excellent: (given in April of '06) "Now, the key thing comes back to this curve again: What this curve means, is that as long as this system operates under the rules it operates under now, the present laws, the present institutions, and so forth, this system, unless a change is introduced in the meantime, will collapse by September. This country could be finished by September, unless we do something. And my job, is to try to educate the educable. There are people in this country and a few other places, who are capable of understanding what I'm talking about: that is, they have the technical competence to be able to understand what I'm talking about." So let's summarize; 1-the current political system is wrong and will collapse by September, 2006 2-Lydon's job is to educate the educable 3-there are people capable of understanding Lyndon. Well I am assuming Lyndon's prediction of the September 2006 collapse, is a mistake because the last time I looked we are all still mucking along. I would imagine you are educable and capable of understanding Lyndon. Here is what I have to say. The article you quote offered nothing. All it said was the world is coming to an end and unless we follow what Lyndon says we are doomed. Hmm where have I heard that before. See for me to take someone seriously I need to read their positions. What I have read from Mr. Larouche over the years were diatribes against Jews, gays, opinions as to conspiracies being orchestrated by gays, jews, impotent Peurto Ricans (yes he wrote that), the CIA and Carter, on and on. When one actually tries to analyze his economic theories they find there are none other then, listen to what Lyndon says and let him control the banks. Well now. Let us talk about what Lyndon is. Why bear around the bush. He is a failure. For a person who succeeded in creatinng a powerful multi-millionaire empire and made himself tremendous wealth no ojne will elect him and no one has ever been able to define any of his economic theories and put them into practice. He has managed to have followers elected to state congress and even as a Lt. Goevrnor of a state, but when you look at his record or his theories no one has ever been able to put them in practice because no one can define them. See it is easy to tell the world you are a genius and everyone must agree with you and if they don't they ae not "educable". Its easy to present conspiracy theories and tell people the world is collapsing. It is easy to say what is wrong which Lyndon does. But what does he in fact propose as an alternative? I challenge you to take the address you quote and explain to us based on it what economic theories we should pursue based on that article. You can't. It doesn't provide any. It is called rhetoric. Its junk food. It is all air with no substance. You really should examine how the Larouche organization raises its money and what happens to people that question his beliefs. Like any cult leader, he is charismatic, paranoid, narcissistic, and demands people agree with him and stroke his ego. If he really is a visionary ask yourself, why is it all his writings do but one thing, express his personal opinions as to conspiracies but nothing else?

Cool....cept those wooden shoes are freezing in winter. The tulips will look nice in spring. Windmills galore...... and everyone can put a finger in a dyke. I'd ask first though. ER be careful about putting a finger in any dyke. Leafless has made his position on same sex marriages in Canada quite clear. Let's not go there!

" This is an ideal description pertaining to the charter queens, the Liberals." That is funny Leafless Charter Queens. You are funny.

Point of clarification, Rue: White Doors said Higgly was anti-semitic for a dig th elatte rmade at the IDF. I disagreed on that particular point. I would agree that Higgly has definitely pushed the envelope in some other ways (ie. the New York comment). Cheers. Thanks B-dog. I am also the first to defend Higgly's right to criticize Israel and and the IDF just as I respect your views. I respect Higgly's views otherwise I would not debate him so much. It means a lot to me he debates me and does his best to present the other side. If I didn't respect him, I wouldn't debate so much. I will also say this. I found some of his comments unfair but I am the first to admit I come across as a sanctimonious twat when I am debating because I get really caught up in this stuff too. I am no angel and anm a gigantic wad of righteousness at times. Sometimes we all make comments in heat of the moment. I am full of them. I hope people understand when I write, I respect their views very much and I juste njoy debating so much I get intense and sometimes sound like a sanctimonious twit but it is meant as respect. I really enjoy the opportunity to debate on this forum. Sometimes I forget I monopolize too much in the responses and I apologize its just I am really enjoying myself. There are many sides to all debates and issues. I have no monopolies on what is the right arguement and I thank my luck stars we live in a country where we can have such forums and debate each other but don't have to go around killing each other over it. Unless of course it has to do with Paris Hilton. Insult her and you deal with me. (I was joking for heaven's sake)

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes. You missed the point Figleaf. Each genocide, like each snow flake is unique. If you try mash themall together, of course they will all seem the same colour-white. That is why we must take care when we talk about ANY genocide not to compare them to others or try use others to suggest they are not unique or have lesser signiifigance since there have been other genocides. Think about it FigLeaf. It is insulting to the survivors of any genocide to have their genocides compared and tossed about in off handed comments clearly done to downgrade their uniqueness. How for one moment does a genocide in the Ukraine have any relevance to the holocaust? It is not relevant. They are both tragedies. They both saw innocent people die and suffer at the hands of psychotics. But to suggest one is not unique because another happened why? Why? Why must it even arise in a discussion about Israel in such a way? No Figleaf even you can figure out why its wrong to talk about the mass killings of people in such a way. Each genocide must be honoured individually and never be confused with any other or be made less important simply because there are so many.

" This proves how twisted you really are as you have posted NO factual information to support anything you have said outside of resorting to the charter, a flawed piece of legislation invented by socialist for the primary benefit of Quebec that should be scrapped for the salvation of Canada as a country." O.k. Leafless let me break it to you gently, the Charter of Rights has nothing to do with socialism, never did, never will. It is constitutional law dealing with fundamental principles. The Charter of Rights does not in any way shape or form discuss how the economy should be run. The fact you may disagree with the concept of there being a Charter of Rights doesn't make it "socialist". I think perhaps you have used the word "socialist" so many times as a negative accusation, you have probably forgotten what it really means. Perhaps you should have used the word "permissive". You might also want to focus in on Pierre Trudea not for his alleged socialism but the fact that he was rumoured to be bi-sexual. I mean clearly the man may have had a vested interest in destroying Canada. "since you naturally do not believe in the 'will of the majority', or for that matter 'international recognition' concerning any point you argued that you view as discriminatory or wrong." What is going on Leafless? Do you even understand what you said? You have no international legal basis to argue international laws as to human rights only pertain to hetero-sexuals-none, zero, danada. More to the point, did you read what you wrote? You have said it again-you want morality decided by the "majority". Now when this "majority" as is the case today with the majority of MP's don't want to agree with you, oops you move on to the alleged majority of Canadians you think agree with you and want the law to discriminate against gay marriages. Well then, start your party and get your people elected and change the law. I could have sworn the Christian Heritage Party tried to do what you are advocating and couldn't muster too much support and in fact the Rhinoceraus Party garned more of the popular vote-which is funny considering everyone knows the Rhinoceraus is a horny creature. "If you think my position concerning morality is extreme and isolated, then you should have no problem supporting an initiative demanding a 'national referendum' concerning the issue. Prove me wrong!" Like I said, go out and start your petition and bring it to Parliament. Better still create your party and go for it. No one has to prove you wrong. You are right! So you will have no problems sweeping into office with people who think just like you and changing Canada and legislating morality for the majority you represent. Do me a favour, if you bring back stoning or burning at the stake, give us some warning so I can move to Iran-er wait, they agree with you - I meant Holland. They tend to be immoral and so I might be safer there.

All I am saying is I have never heard of any international agreement relating to homosexuals being part of the 'International Declaration of Human Rights' relating to being accepted pertaining to the word 'everyone'. I have asked for proof relating to this and have yet not seen any. Because your question is defective. It assumes gays are not humans. Since they are, they do not have to be specifically mentioned just as hetero-sexuals are not either. Now before you answer that, think Leafless. Your assumption that everything in law can only mean hetero-sexual humans, doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind. That is not how law works or is drafted. I am sorry I say that with due respect but you assuming that if something doesn't specifically say what you want it to say, it can't be. That is not how the law works. If you want the law to ONLY apply to sraights, it has to specifically state that it only applies to them,otherwise the ambiguity can't be construed in your favour.

So mentioning the Holocaust and or Jews in NYC or even saying negative things about the Israeli DEFENCE FORCE (last time I checked that is a military, hard to be anti-semetic against a military) By this reasoning everytime I bash the U.S.A.'s military I should be considered anti-american, but you fail to see the difference in hating the actions of said group as opposed to hating the group outright. Read what I write. At no time did I call anyone an anti-semite merely for criticizing the IDF. The comments about Jews in New York were deliberately racist and had nothing to do with the issue. The comment comparing the holocaust to the Ukrainian genocide is one of the oldest tactics in the world to denigrate any genocide by comparing it to another. Both comments were gratuitous and had nothing to do with the discussion but were thrown in to take pot shots at Jes in general and not keep the discussion about Israel. That is anti-semitic not to mention pathetic, You want to criticize the IDF and bad mouth Israel and tell the world you hate Israel be my friggin guest. Make comments that insult Jews or tries to downplay the holocaust and you bet I will be all over you like white on rice. "Do you hate Hamas? Hezbollah? Or just hate their actions and what they stand for? " If you just took the time to educate yourself as to what Hamas and Hezbollah are, how they are constituted, how they operate, what they stand for, you would realize how silly your question is. I will make you a deal. Go read up on them. Then come back and ask me the question again if you still think you need to. "I do not believe they have rights to that land regardless of your legality mumbo jumbo" Well at least we know you refer to complex concepts when debating. Of course I will wait with great anticipation for you to define what you mean when you refer to "that land". "War does not determine who is RIGHT, just who is left." O.k. let me try some simple words. If a country is forced to go to war to defend itself, and in that defence creates borders through war, those borders can become legally enshrined. I would explain that further but you said you don't believe in that legal mumbo jumbo so how about I answer it this way-go back and read what the Belfour Declaration was and try find out how TransJordan came about. Just try that. It may be as you say mumbo jumbo but it might answer your question rather then simply making a comment that means very little although I do not doubt you felt if was profound. "Now Higgly then tried to bring up another unrelated topic to the international law doctrine of defensible borders and suggest that the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank are in contravention to the Geneva convention." Well I could try explain it to you why Higgly is not legally correct and quoted the wrong convention and is misunderstanding the laws he thinks he is quoting but you already said you are not interested in any legal mumbo jumbo so I guess I shouldn't mention any of that. If you do change your mind and wantg me to explain that legal mumbo jumbo you don't want to hear would be pleased to and I can use easy to understand words if you want. "So having illegal West Bank settlements is ok in your book Rue?" Again if you read what I have stated you would not have asked this question. I do not condone any illegal West Bank settlements and I think the settlements in the West Bank are an impediment to peace. That said, I have also stated that the law is not as black and white as to land ownership in the West Bank as Higgly has tried to depict it. I have tried to explain the law but again you said you are not interested in legal mumbo jumbo so I will keep my answer simply to the above as I would not want to confuse you. "How do you really feel about it? The borders for Israel are still as of this time not 100% defined." Gosh, someone asking me how I feel about this topic. Lol. It is a good thing you ask because I have never ever on these posts ever attempted to answer that question. Golly Gee where would I start,...o.k. let me give you a hint...somewhere on this forum I may have already responded to what you are asking and I have stated that the 1949-1967 borders of Israel or any other borders of Israel just like the borders for a Palestinian nation other then the Palestininan nation of Jordan which already exists, will be defined in accordance with mutually arrived at agreements and the concept of safe borders. I hope that wasn't too much mumbo jumbo for you to understand. I fully agree with the Israeli government's already well known position that it will agree to the 1949 to 1967 Israeli borders. How do I let you in on this-that is not in dispute.The remaining issue is in trying to assure the West Bank or Gaza which would become a second Palestinian state will not be used as launching sites for missiles or terrorist attacks against Israel. I hope that was not to mumbo jumbo for you to understand. " But they will be in 2010. Israel has said so." Actually no they did not say this. I would be curious what you are reading or quoting from. "So if there are no defined borders then Israeli's can settle anywhere they want?" You have not read what I wrote otherwise you would not ask a question I already answered. You have also stated you are not interested in legal mumbo jumbo so how would you like me to answer if you don't want to hear the answer? How about I try it with these real easy to understand words-no one in their right mind on either side of the equation believes anyone whether they are Israeli or Palestinian can settle where ever they want. The fact that you have reduced what you think is Israel's position to this shows me you do not understand Israel's position and are obviously having difficulty grasping dialogue that may be beyond your level of comprehension at this point in time given your reference to legal mumbo jumbo. Again how about I use these simple words- all Israel has ever maintained is that it is left alone from terrorist attacks andis guaranteed peace it has no interest in the West Bank or Gaza or trekking into Lebanon or anywhere else after terrorists. "Occupation is what it is, plain and simple (or is it simple due to the fact of undefined borders?)" Well know its not. First of all, you use the word occupation incorrectly because as you said you are not interested in legal mumbo jumbo. Israel does not occupy the Gaza or the West Bank. If you travelled there and made a point of understanding what is actually there and what the IDF actually does you would know that. More to the point, and again let me try use simple words for you, you can't occupy a stateless area of land. You can only occupy land that is already sovereign. How about I use these simple words. Jordan did not occupy but they did ANNEX the West Bank from 1949 to 1967. That means they administered the area. In 1967 the Israeli government pursuant to a war, sent in a military governor but the IDF in fact only is situated in specific zones. The vast majority of the West Bank is not occupied by the IDF. It in fact uses road-blocks and patrols but stays away from most Palestinian communities. It does respond when a terrorist attack happens or it has received intelligence and goes in to prevent a terrorist attack from happening but these are specific missions. I hope that wasn't too much legal mumbo jumbo for you. "It's not just how we on MLW interperet the law, but it is how Israel and the rest of them interperet the law. We can see it one way, they see it another." Not sure what you are getting at but as I stated from the get go, there is no right or wrong, just competing or conflicting interests, and this is why, rational, moderate people search for non violent solutions that allow both sides to peacefully co-exist and do not try depict this as a good guy and bad guy just two tormented peoples looking for a way out. "Yes Rue you are right in everything, however the way I see it is ......." Well thanks but I am a Jew so in Higgly's mind I must live in New York and exaggerate the importance of the Holocaust and automatically be bias against Palestinians -how about you, do you think I am involved in conspiracies to take over the world and maintain our grip on Hollywood and the banks? Do you think I hate Palestinians because I despise terrorism. Do you think I hate Palestinians because I despise Hamas and Hezbollah using them as shields and pawns? Do you think I hate Palestinians because I spent many years with moderate Palestinians and Israelis working on peaceful dialogue? I will give you a hint-I odn't control any banks, Hollywood or have ever engaged in world conspiracies. I don't even hate Mel Gibson although I did think his last movie to me insulted Christianity and portrayed it in a way that I do not feel did justice to what the Christian religion is about. I think it forcused too much on one portion of the entire tale and that portion was distorted and taken out of context much like the Middle East conflict. I think like the Middle East conflict, the movie was done in a way that tried to make things black and white and easy to understand and portray a good and a bad and good people and bad people. I think such concepts probably work well with people like you who are not comfortable with mumbo jumbo but for people like me need to be challenged. "Higgly should take his prejudice butt to the West Bank and speak to both Palestinians and Israelis and find out who these settlers are and what and why some of them were placed where they were." I think we should all go. If everything was paid for today, would any of you get off the couch/computer and go actually find out? " Do us all a favour. Stay home.

Can't wait for the following to demand equal rights when praying during political conventions; -satanists (they will want to cut off goat heads and draw pentograms and light candles) -pagans (they are all sex maniacs and will want to run around naked and chant and have open fires) -gays (they pray to their prophets Elton John,Marlyn Monroe and Judy Garland amd they play dance music when they pray) -hasidic Jews (they will compete with space with the Sikhs and Muslims or anyone else with beards which could be simply pinkos) -humanists (they insist on going around and hugging people) -Reiki practitioners (at least they won't touch anyone). Ah the politics of inclusivity. I personally believe if people want to pray they should go somewhere private. Then again I prefer a private cubicle to a stall when given the choice. I could have a bias about public displays.

Chretien has spent his career with speeches playing the jokester. This latest comment is just par for the course. Jean Chretien being funny. But it like him has no substance. Chretien towards the end of his career adapted the French foreign policy towards the Middle East and the United States. He promoted an anti-American mentality. This is a man who was far closer to Bill Clinton then Harper has ever been with Bush. Who is kidding who. This man fawned all over Bill Clinton and made a point of telling the world how close they were in beliefs and in friendship. So come on. To take his comments seriously misses the point-that he is a has been and was playing the fool to entertain which is what he always did and will do. I mean for this man to take a shot at Harper for restoring relations with the U.S. is laughable. This is a man whose concept of foreign policy was taking junkets to countries with patronage friends . In case you didn't notice Chretien's machine was behind Rae who was clearly defeated. The other remaining inside Liberals for Iggy and he was soundly defeated. Liberals revolted against the Chretien machine and the other insider Liberals. So Chretien can play the bafoon all he wants but the point is he was a light-eight in office who left no lasting legacy and will never be remembered in history for having done anything. He can laugh all he wants but when he went running to China like a step and fetch it boy begging for contracts-he demonstrated what he is a lacky bafoon. At least Harper had the guts to bring up China's human rights violations, clearly putting him in a far different position then the U.S. Chretien on the other hand by running to China to suck up, was in fact more guilty of following the kind of U.S. foreign policy we Canadians question. Bottom line is-the old boot should just shut up and beat it.

I am with Fellow's comments on this and I will add some more two cents. If I was a conservative strategist I would believe Dion is the toughest opponent. Here's why. We all know Iggy was a disaster/accident waiting to happen and could not have made in throughout an election without a major gaff. Kennedy would have been completely unexperienced and while he is a great speaker and clearly this man really is quite the strategist and networker (proving to me he is no dummy at all I take it back) could not have matched Harper in economic debates. Who did that leave. Rae and Dion. Now let's be serious. Does anyone think with the economic baggage Rae had, he could convince Ontario let alone the West he was capable of running our economy. He would have been blown away as a socialist. I think of all the candidates Harper would have blown away the easiest it would have been Rae first, Iggy second, then Kennedy third simply because of Kennedy's lack of experience. So that leaves Dion. Dion has the same temperment. Everyone talks about him the way they did when Harper ran-a stiff, unfriendly, no nonsense, bland kind of guy. sound familiar? Dion has a ph.d in sociology and a B.A. and M.A. in Political Science. His doctorate is from Paris, his other degrees from Laval where his father was the head of the PoliSci faculty. Look he is an academic-but he has something no one else did in the LIberal Party-ten years technical experience garnered from being the inter-governmental affairs Minister, and then Environmental Minister. If nothing else that equipped him far better then the rest. He also has demonstrated in debates despite his French accent that he is another Stephen Harper, i.e., someone with razor wits, and like Harper, is no nonsense and blunt and no b.s. I think these two are the best match up for proper debates. I think all this nonsense about the Tories being happy, etc., is b.s. and made up. We all know their are pro's and cons with anyone who would have won. Obviously when McKenna did not run, that is when the Tories would have been happiest but I quite frankly think Frank McKenna was very over-rated. Is Dion the Joe Clark of the Liberals. I don't think so. I think the difference is he has paid his dues in an unpopular ministry taking on very explosive unpopular issues and I think warts and all, in a corupt regime of Chretien's you don't see people sticking any of the dirt on him and this is a guy who worked loyally for both Chretien and Martin. This is a survivor. He will make Harper work hard. I will say this. I think Harper can take the soft middle of the road votes way from Dion by saying something a but more conciliatory about the environment and maintaining his approach to middle class tax cuts. That will take away voters who may be thinking Dion is too left. I also think if Haprer is smart he will get into Quebec and exploit the hatred for him there. However if anyone thinks Iggy won over Quebec and could have delivered Quebec and Ontario unlike any other Liberal, while I agree, I also think he would have self-destructed. I also think Quebecers would still not have voted for Iggy and still would have voted Block Q despite Iggy's nation nonsense.

Dion is a liability in Quebec. He is seen by Quebecers as a Trudea federalist. This means he is strong with English and minority Quebecers but despised by the typical French Quebecer. I think Harper can get some of what we call the Union Nationale vote-basically the soft federalists that voted for Mulroney and who really aren't federalist just power mongers. But its interesting. Quebec hates BOTH Harper and Dion equally. Here is what I would say and you guys forget. As much as Quebecers may hate Dion he still is one of them and just like so many hated Chretien and Trudea they voted for them for the same reason. Push comes to shove they will vote Block Quebecois anyways. I mean think about it. They can vote Block Quebecois knowing they are safe in Canada but can continue to pitch and complain. Here is why I like the results. I promise you this. Dion will get his English down pat. Dion is a very sharp man. A razor wit and very skilled at debating. Of all the people I want debating Harper its him. He has the same temperment. I really think Harper would have massacered Rae's NDP baggage and Iggy's academic flip floppy arrogance and absence from the country. Dion is not stupid. He positioned himself so Chretien's dirt was nowhere near him. He has the green card to play with the environment and English Canada knows he is a strong federalist and interestingly voters turned off by Harper's nation within a nation gambit will go to him. I really think his ability to speak in English is not that bad. Sorry I have seen him ad lib and his grammar or verb tenses are far better then Chretien's. Don't let his accent fool you. I did watch him in some scrums today and he ad libbed in English quite well. O.k. here was another nauseating thing. Listenin to Olivia Chow say the Liberals are too concerned with winning. Ahahahah. What a chump. Brilliant Olivia. Now go back to Spadina Avenue and ride your bike into traffic.

I don't think Israel is powerful because it has superior military technology. I don't think one is synonomous with the other. I think there is tremendous power that comes from religious fundamentalism and the kind of power that fuels terrorism which can easily neutralize conventional military technology. I do not see Israel as the top dog in the Middle East conflict and I have never viewed it as the top-dog. I believe the sheer numbers of Muslim births is the most powerful equation in the conflict. I also believe that both sides are powerless over the most key and central issue in the Middle East which everyone never understands or is oblivious to and that is fresh WATER and access to it. Access to fresh water is the key to survival.

Well clearly the Liberal delegates read my post yesterday and decided to vote for Stephane Dion. I would say Gerard Kennedy gave a great speech and I apologize for calling him a light weight and he has nice glasses. I think chubby Ken Dryden gave a good speech. I was very suprised how muchs steam Dion picked up. I also thought it would be Rae and Dion on the last ballot. What I find very interesting is that despite wooing the Quebec delegates Ignatieff clearly was not the choice of the party regulars. I loved seeing all those Chretien whores who supported Rae running to Dion in a panic sensing they were licked. Kennedy was genuine in his support. But the rest even Ken Dryden and especially Volpe looked like idiots running to him. Rae was a class act by staying neutral. He could have easily walked over to Dion because Ignatieff and him really went at each other but he stayed statesman like. Kudos to him. I must say this though. I was watching it on CTV and that Ann McLellan's voice just gets to me. Its like fingers on a chalk board. Also I damn near vomited listening to Brian Tobin's ass kissing comments about Paul Martin. I think Dion will suprise you how well he can debate accent or no accent. Here is what is interesting. He is not popular in Quebec given his Trudeau like approach to federalism. That makes the election in Quebec interesting. I think he will do very well with urban and soft NDP voters but I am not sure he can beat Harper. They both are very similiar in temperment. I think even with his association to Chretien he will have an easier time defending himself then Igg or Rae would have had with Harper. It was worth it to see Iggy today trying to smile at the end. What an arrogant jack ass. Someone should pull that pickle out of his I am smarter then anyone butt. I guarantee you he will not win his seat and go running back to Harvard. As for Rae, I think he won't win in an election either. As for Scott Bryson, you think he would have seen the writing on the wall and gone running to Dion. Dumb move. One last thing, Belinda baby, what have you done with your hair. You and Cameron Diaz did that auburn thing huh. Apprently being blonde is passe in Hollywood. Well go tell Madonna will you.

From June 1949 to the end of January 1952, 57 Israeli civilians died from repeated terroist attacks from the West Bank into Israel proper. As a result then Prime Minister Ben Gurion asked Major Ariel Sharon then commander of Unit 101 a commando unit to do something to make it clear to terrorists operating in theWest Bank that Israel would fight back. As a result in 1953 Sharon's commando unit went into Qibya Village. The attack started with an artillery barrage. Palestinian villagers were warned to flee and did before the barrages started. Some Palestinian villagers ignored the warnings to leave and chose to stay behind and hide in their homes. In fact had the commando unit NOT warned the villagers before the attack and most evacuated or it would have been worse. Unfortunately a group stayed behind and when their homes were demolished they died probably hiding inside caught in the battle between the Israeli commandos and the terrorists. The actual number of dead have never been verified. Some say 60 died, others say 69. The problem is the numbers are reported from the terrorists and the actual bodies were never authenticated by any neutral third party source. The point of the matter is the death of the civilians was unfortunate and to try exploit their deaths in an attempt to try make Israel bad, Palestinians good is b.s. -t o simply select it out as an isolated attack done by Israel for no reason is b.s. Once again it was a response and part of the vicious cycle of terrorist attack followed by an IDF response. It is unfortunate these people had to die. For those who question should these civilians have died, of course not. However in house to house fighting and in hot pursuit of terrorists, civilians die despite warning them to get out. To suggest this was done deliberately is b.s. It was however like every case of civilians from either side dying, a tragic consequence of people choosing to use violence to express political will and exposing civilians to the line of fire.

"When Chaim Weitzman was trying to find a place for the Jews in the Middle East, he travelled to Aqaba and from there by camel into the desert to meet Abdullah, who was later to become the Hashemite King of Jordan. He promised Abdullah that the Arabs of Palestine would be protected and asked for his blessing for the Jews in Palestine. Abdullah agreed to this and gave him welcome. In fact, he sent guides across the desert to bring the lost European to his tents. Do not underestimate the significance. This was the most important signal a desert king could give to a Eurpoean. He would have done no less for Lawrence." Higgly is completely and absolutely wrong. This is not the King whose treaty or agreement with Dr. Weitzman would form the basis for why the League of Nations would go on to pursue the Belfour declaration as I have explained in my other response. The above incident has no historic signifigance at all and Higgly with due respect is talking nonsense. "Fast forward to the eve of the Israeli war of indepence in 1948. The Zionists, and most particularly David Ben Gurion, fearing for their future, sent Golda Meir to talk to Abdullah and to ask that Abdullah not attack Israel (as defined by the UN partition boundairs). Abdullah agreed to do this." Again this is nonsense. Ben Gurion certainly met with Abdullah asking him to stay out of the war, but the "fearing for their future" is Higgly's melodramatic words and Abdullah never agreed to stay out of the war. Most of the attacks in the beginning of the war came from Jordan as I explained in my repsonses. "The war started and Israel invaded territory held by Jordan and drove Palestinian refugees across the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt." This is absolute and utter fabricated b.s. and Higgly should be absolutely ashamed to try pretend he is discussing an historic event. The vast majority of Palestinians within what is now Israel, left long before any war broke out. They did not go across the borders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. If that was the case where do all the displaced refugees come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a ridiculously dumb thing to say. Israel also went into the West Bank but NOT Jordan but very briefly-it had very few soldiers, and most of the fighting was in Jeusalem and this is precisely why Jordan seized the West Bank with great ease. "Jordan kept its promise and did not invade the territory assigned to Israel by the UN partition agreement. This isolated Jordan from the Arab League and has caused them great grief ever since." This is just out and out false. This would have us believe no Jordanian troops ever fought in Jerusalem or in Israel. Bull. Bull. Bull. Israel by the way was never assigned anything by the Un partition agreement. The UN partition agreement which defined two enclaves,d id not assign them and history shows Jordanian tropps attacked Israel were part of the war, and this idea that they didn't attack Israel in what was assigned to it is nonsensical. Jordan attacked where and when it could often in areas part of the enclave defined for Israel. "After the war was over, there were border skirmishes. In one case, a group of Palestinian Arab terrorists, embittered by the loss of their homes, infiltrated Israel across the Jordanian border and killed a women and her two children. In response, Israel sent Ariel Sharon and a platoon of Israeli fighters to a village near where the Plaestinians had crossed. Sharon murdered the entire village." Ariel Sharon did not murder the entire village. This is absolute and utter b.s. Please go find out for yourself what really happened. There is obviously another version far different then Higgly's . "Shortly after that, a herd of Israeli sheep wandred across the border into Jordan. Moshe Dayan advocated a mission to send Sharon back into Jordan. Fortunately, the UN found the sheep and returned them to Israel. This was referred to by the UN as the 'Bo Peep' incident, but there are probably a number of Jordanians who are still alive today because of this action by the UN." This the kind of ridiculous intellectual dishonesty that just absolutely churns my stomach. Higgly takes an incident and then makes a completely subjective statement based on nothing more then him inventingw hat he wants-" Jordanians are still alibe today because of this action by the UN". Higgly tries to have us believe that necessarily Israel was planning to kill Palestinian civilians to get back sheep. This is blatant speculation based on nothing more then Higgly's prejudice against Israel and so his feeling he can pass off things that never happened or would have happened as facts that were prevented. I have taken great care to provide you another version of the simplified bunk Higgly tries to pass off. He is going to have to do a lot better then reading selected articles off the inter-net that suit his selective needs. His thesis on Jordan being a good guy yet again is an attempt to revise Middle East history to portray Israel as "bad" and I suppose in this case 'Jordan" as good, although he switches it to Palestinians. "In the end, Jordan was the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel." This is b.s. Egypt was. "In spite of comments on these boards to the contrary, it has been the most willing to give a home to Palestinian refugees victimized by the birth of the state of Israel." To start with it was until 1966, it then has been at war with Palestinians ever since. But as I stated it does have a law of return for Palestinians so I would agree compared to other Arab countries it did its best until the PLO turned on it. Then again it is 78% of Palestine so what else could it do. Now as for the " Palestinian refugees victimized by the birth of the state of Israel" comment-this is why I do not take Higgly seriously. Palestinian refugees found themselves homeless not because of the birth of Israel but because of the decision of the Arab League to to atack Israel. Palestinian refugees are homeless because Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and many other arab league nations, particularly the obscene wealthy ones such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have refused to take them in. How did Israel victimize anyone? If Higgly genuinely wanted to discuss history he would admit 78% of Palestine was taken away from Jews, and the remaining 22% came about through war that the Arab League started and forced to be created through war. The Arab League then compounded their error by expelling 900,000 Jews forcing Israel to take in 700,000 making it impossible for them to ever be able to accommodate displaced Palestinians. "Jordan is Israel's best bet as a peace partner". Absolutely agreed. King Hussein and his son have gone out of there way to try their best to serve as peaceful moderate helpers in the process. It is true after 1967, Jordan has tried hard to live in peaceful co-existence with Israel but there is no point pretending before 1967 it was Israel's friend. After the Black Sabbath uprisings in the early 1970's and Britain and France tried to placate the PLO, and the KGB openly assisted Syria and the PLO in Jordan- Jordan realized it had to make peace with Israel. King Hussein was a risk taker and a strong opponent of Muslim terrorism and fundamentalism and so is his son. It is precisely for that reason Israel felt it could enter into an accord with the PLO at Oslo. Jordan is a crucial player in neutralizing Hamas on the West Bank. It is crucial a Palestinian state is created on the West Bank because Jordan can not and will no longer absorb any more Palestinians after the Black Sabbatth uprisinhg. My displeasure is aimed at all the other nonsense strewn about not the fact that King Hussein or his son are moderate peaceful people trying their best to help in the peace process. King Hussein was greatly admired by Israelis. It is also a fact that since the Black Sabbath uprising, Israeli and Jordanian intelligence no how to find each other in regards to Hamas and other terrorists. However, the average Jordanian it should not be misunderstood, does not side with Israel, and would prefer Israel given to Palestinians. One only needs to look at Jordanian television or read its papers to know that. It has a volotile population that its King must depend heavily on his army to keep an eye on. Jordan jails many political opponents.

Finally it is absolutely absurd when discussing the creation of TransJordan to look at its creation as a benevolent "good thing" . If you are a Palestinian who wanted a Palestinian republic in Jordan and Israel they are seen as a bad thing. If you are a Jew wanting to form a homeland, they are seen as a bad thing because they represent 78% of land illegally taken away by the British and arbitrarily given to a Saudi monarch's son simply as pay-bacl for fighting Turkey in World War One. If you are Syria who believes they should control all of Palestine they are seen as a bad guy. In fact Egypt and Syria so concerned with the PLO coming in to their countries and causing problems saw Jordan as big an enemy as Israel and would have loved to have toppled King Hussein. Now to understand Jordan's role after Britain turns it into a real estate in 1946 as opposed to just a fictitious state before then one has to properly look at what they did. Jordan and all Arabs League nations rejected the UN partition plan which called on cerating two states, in fact a second Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state in the remaining 22% of Palestine. Of that remaining 22% of Palestine, the Jews simply declare once the British mandate expires that pursuant to the UN's declaration, it was exercising its legal right to create a state. Unlike Higgly's selective distorted history of Jordan which completely ignores the relation the Belfour declaration would have had to certain land claims for Jews, I do not ignore such things but I do state that Israel when it declares itself a nation had already indicated it would not contest TransJordan which it could have and was even willing to divide up the remaining 22% of Palestine. It never had a chance. Israel was attacked from all sides including Jordan. On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha of Jordan, a close ally of Britain, declared "jihad", against Israel and led the armies of the Arab League against Israel. He stated and I quote; "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". Does he sound like a good guy? Does he sound like a military general a "good" country would produce? The Mufti of Jerusalem, back from Berlin now that Hitler was dead stated, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" Jordan along with Llebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq invaded Israel with the express purpose to destroy it. Now how can anyone who understands the history of the Middle East have the audacity to state that a country that is made up illegally of 78% of Palestine which was mandated to be part of a Jewish homeland, is "good" when it is part of an express war to massacre and wipe out Jews so they can't even live in less then 22% of what remains of Palestine. How is that "good"? Let's not play games with history,. After the UN resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, to partition what remained of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states Jordan and the rest of these countries gambled. They took it upon themselves to roll the dice and try seize the rest of Palestine. Palestinian Arabs were actually manipulated by the Arab League to initiate hostilities against the Jewish population. It was early in 1948, the first attack on the Jewish village of Tirat Tzevi came about. On May 15 1948, with the termination of the British Mandate (which they never ever attempted to pursue), the states of the Arab League (armies from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and a token force from Saudi Arabia) invaded Israel. T The Arab Legion overran the Etzion bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem, two Jewish settlements north of the city, as well as the Sheikh Jarrah district of the city and the Jewish quarter of the Old City; the new city of Jerusalem was now under siege. All these attacks were coming from Jordan. On June 11, a general truce came into effect which only lasted to July 8. The rest is history. A rag tag bunch of poorly equipped Jews (4,000) held off vastly superior numbers of Arab troops. I love it when revisionists state that the Arab troops were not well armed or well trained. Their leader from Jordan was one of Britain's favourite warriors against the Turks and Britain in secret felt he would seize the rest of Palestine in days. The Egyptians were the first to agree to discuss armistice terms and an agreement was signed at Rhodes in Feb., 1949 . Separate armistice agreements were then signed with Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria and no agreement was ever signed with Iraq or Saudi Arabia to this day. The West Bank was simply seized by Jordan and after the armistice a demarkation line was drawn between Israel and Jordan but that was never defined as an international border and to this day an international border has never been drawn between Jordan and Israel. Jordan took the West Bank over in 1967, and imposed a military governor only after Jordanian and Iraqi troops massed on its border and the Arab League made it clear in 1967 that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and token representation from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, would once again try wipe Israel off the map. Excuse me if I do not revise history and define any country as good or bad. Its an absurd way to analyze what happened.

Now when we talk about good guys and bad guys in the Middle East it is ridiculous to state the monarchy in Jordan is good or tried to help Israel or offered it anything. That is utter b.s. and I will explain it later in pure military terms as to what happened in 1948 to 1949 to prove why such claims are b.s. However we should not mix up what happened in the War of Independence between Israel and Jordan and what happens in Jordan in 1967 when it has a civil war and King Hussein suddenly distances himself from his country’s Palestinian identity. Back in 1966 the PLO through one of its representatives, Ahmed Shukeiry declared that Jordan must become the Palestinian Republic.. After the PLO took over Jordan they would then take over Israel. There was extreme turmoil in Jordan from this time as the PLO tried to take over. One of the reasons Jordan allowed itself to be used to attack Israel in the 1967 war was to distract attention away from the internal civil war and hopefully defeat Israel and move the Palestinians into Israel. So anyone who states Jordan was Israel’s friend is distorting the true situation. Jordan and Israel had a mutual enemy, Yasir Arafat but Jordan was no friend of Israel-it needed Israel to be strong to neutralize Arafat. Is Jordan a good guy? Of course not-if you are Palestinian. Now understand why it is idiotic to refer to Jordan as good or bad. It is a puppet creation like many colonies created to be dominated. It was a tool the British used to help prevent Jews from immigrating to Palestine by making 78% of Palestine unavailable to Jews. Here is what else the British did; To understand that one only needs to examine the events; -in 1929 the British Shaw Commission found Jewish immigration of 1925-26 to "excessive" and recommended restriction of Jewish immigration and land sales. -1930, the British publish th e Passfield White Paper stating Jewish immigration and land acquisition should be further restricted - the British then impose the Cultivators' Ordinance in 1933 replaces earlier laws, giving free land from Western Palestine to Arab "statutory tenants" that is Arab settlers or nomadic Bedouin who had not "grossly neglecting" areas of grazing or occasional presence in direct contravention of the Belfour declaration15 -in 1934 the British Government instituted a practice of deducting their estimated numbers of illegal Jewish immigrants from Jewish immigration quotas -interestingly n 1936, The Conference of Protestant and Catholics in America declared in a paper that and I quote; "It is the profound conviction of Christian America that [the British Government] rescind its illegal, unjust, and indefensible partition of Palestine, to restore Trans-Jordania [Jordan] to its proper place as part of Palestine territory, and throw it open to Jewish Settlement" -in 1936 there are riots across Palestine funed by the Nazis -in 1937 the Palestine Royal commission, recommends dividing Western Palestine a second time into two states one Jewish - the Arabs reject this recommendation and then British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Eden, in documents now revealed states Britain will come up with another plan, "which would not give Jews any territory exclusively for their own use." He even went so far as to state; "If we must have preferences, let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to Jews." -Eden also stated; “ I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [the Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships" 21 Adolf Hitler offered to allow the Jews to emigrate from Europe in 1938, if anyone would take them. 22 - in 1939 the British Government White Paper then invoked a policy in further direct contradiction of the Belfour declaration restricting Jewish immigration to a small limited number for five years, and then after that “ at the discretion of "Arabs of Palestine." -In 1939 The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations protested the Britain's "White Paper" in Augustm as four out of seven members were about to strike down the White Paper as a violation of the Mandate of Palestine. WWII breaks out -in 1940 Britain then prohibited transfer of any land in Western Palestine to Jews -Neville Chamberlain also is revealed to have told his cabinet and I quote, "If we must offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs". -in 1941 the Mufti of Jerusalem ( Yasir Arafat's 'Uncle) in fact relocated to Berlin -in 1944, Henry Morgenthau, United States Secretary of the Treasury to President Roosevelt is quoted as saying "The British were apparently prepared to accept the probable death of thousands of Jews in enemy territory because of "the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews should they be rescued." -history clearly shows the British used the creation of Jordan as part of its agenda to deliberately violate the Belfour declaration and prevent Jews from ever having a homeland and TransJordan was an active puppet in this effort

History shows that 78% of Palestine is today Jordan and in in fact it contains the majority of Palestinian Arabs. Back in April of 1948, King Abdullah unilaterally declared that Palestine and Transjordan were one in the same In fact King Abdullah’s claim to Jordan and Palestine being one in the same would later be rejected by his grandson King Hussein who in 1967 would have a civil war with the Palestinian population and Yasir Arafat of the PLO and expel Palestinians from Jordan. Jordan to this day, remains an independent Arab Palestinian state where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" in fact applies. Its laws of citizenship clearly state that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by right if they return to Jordan unless they are Jews. Most people who discuss the Middle East have no idea that Jordan is in fact 78% of Palestine and is a Palestinian nation for non Jews and that in fact the argument for another Palestinian state is in fact a second Palestinian state.

History shows that 78% of Palestine is today Jordan and in in fact it contains the majority of Palestinian Arabs. Back in April of 1948, King Abdullah unilaterally declared that Palestine and Transjordan were one in the same In fact King Abdullah’s claim to Jordan and Palestine being one in the same would later be rejected by his grandson King Hussein who in 1967 would have a civil war with the Palestinian population and Yasir Arafat of the PLO and expel Palestinians from Jordan. Jordan to this day, remains an independent Arab Palestinian state where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" in fact applies. Its laws of citizenship clearly state that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by right if they return to Jordan unless they are Jews. Most people who discuss the Middle East have no idea that Jordan is in fact 78% of Palestine and is a Palestinian nation for non Jews and that in fact the argument for another Palestinian state is in fact a second Palestinian state.

Here is how Transjordan, now Jordan was created; After the end of world war 1, (1918) at the Paris Peace Conference Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the area today known as Israel and Jordan but in those days was simply referred to as Palestine. The mandate entrusted Britain to implement the Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2, 1917. This declaration pledging and I quote directly from it “establishment of a national home for the Jewish people”. Let us be crystal clear on this point. This declaration did NOT state the homeland of the Jewish people would be in a particular area of Palestine –it did NOT define territorial restrictions on what side of the Jordan river the Jewish homeland should be created. (East of the Jordan River is where Israel is today, West of the River is where Jordan is today). The mandate the League of Nations entrusted Britain to carry out was and I also quote directly from the Belfour declaration; “ facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” Here is some more of the text; “ Her Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly Understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious Rights of existing non Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” This is how Britain first becomes involved with the land that would become both Jordan and Israel. In early 1919, King Faisal of Syria-Iraq, then the ONLY recognized Arab leader in the world, in fact entered into an agreement with Jewish representative Chaim Weizmann pleding to assist with the creation of the Jewish homeland as per the Balfour Declaration. This agreement defined relations between what as then starting to be referred to as “ Palestine “ and Syria-Iraq. It in fact recognized Palestine as a National Home for the Jews. King Faisal stated at that time; "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper." 4 This 1919 Faisal-Weizmann treaty then formed the basis of the agreement given to the League of Nations which ratified it and the Balfour Declaration at the San Remo Conference in 1920. This proposals covered Palestine which at that time included the land area from the Mediterranean through the entire Galilee and up to the Litany River, hundreds of miles east of the Jordan River and through all of current day Jordan, and into part of the Sinai. So when the the League assigned Palestine Mandate administration to Britain, entrusting it to establish the National Home for the Jews it did not ever tell the British only to restrict Jewish settlement to part of this land. Not withstanding the above the British deliberately violated their mandate in July of 1992 and arbitrarily divided Palestine into 2 administrative districts. This was never part of their mandate but they simply took the law into their own hands and acted unilaterally ignoring the League of Nations mandate. Britain then on its own with no authority under international law, in effect simply acting on their own desires, suddenly would not permit Jews to cross west of the black line they drew in Palestine. This in fact was how Trans Jordan was created. Britain violated its mandate from the League of Nations and acting unilaterally took 78% of what was then Palestine and declared it Transjordan and installed King Abdullah. To understand why Britain did this, one only needs to read through now released documents from noted British figures from that time. Britain created Jordan and Iraq as puppet monarchies as pay-back for the Saudi Royal family's strong support for them against the Turks in World War One. One son would be given Iraw, the other Jordan. King Abdulllah was one of the royal sons of the Hejaz (Saudi Arabia). The Arabians of the Hejaz would be the monarchy given Saudi Arabia yetanother British puppet monarchy. The Hejaz, had been Britain’s most loyal Arab allies when fighting the Turks during world war 1, so it was pay back time. Inserting Abdullah in a puppet state served two purposes. It paid back the Hejaz for their loyalty and it of course enabled Britain to seize land away from Jews who it did not think would be as loyal or easily controlled. Historic documents sent from T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) to then Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, and in particular a letter of January 1921, that Abdullah’s brother, Emir Feisal would agree to give up any claim through his father to all of Palestine if he was given Iraw and Eastern Palestine as two Arab territories. This was also corroborated from documents later revealed from the Chief British Representative in Amman sent back to England. An interesting twist to this story is that Palestine High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, ( a Jew) supported Britain's decision to grab Palestine and use most of it to pay back its loyal allies. You should also understand It wasn’t until 1946 when Transjordan had finally become a de jure Arab state. Transjordan comprised nearly 38,000 square miles of Palestine and Israel, less than 8,000 square miles. So when you see revisionists discussing how Jordan came about and why King Abdulla was "good" its b.s. absolute b.s. There was no good or bad people. Abdullah was part of a royal family who had fought on Britain's side and was given a country as pay back.

It is absolutely ridiculous to define "good guys" and "bad guys" in the Middle East. When studyingany history-true historians as opposed to people trying to distort history to present a bias perspective, remain neutral with such moral judgements. The fact that Higgly started off needing to create a "good guy" already shows his historic analysis is clouded or distorted by moral judgement and a need to prove that the Kingdom of Jordan is good so when he then looks at historic facts, he distorts them to suit this thesis. Time and time again I have taken Higgly to task for reducing the history of the Middle East into abbreviated, bias recitations of only selected events. Once again I will present facts in an attempt to show you that that Higgly's recitation of the creation of Trans Jordan and its inter-relation to the creation of the State of Israel is misrepresented and inaccurate. This may take some time but I will attempt in my next post to do just that and present a more accurate and balanced explanation of the historic events regarding the creation of Trans Jordan.