Rue

Absolutely.

"Play fair Rue. To say that someone being anti-gay means he is actually repressing homosexuality is like saying that someone who is anti-war wants to go to war. It's like saying when a person does not consent to sex that they really want it deep down. " No it is like saying when someone rapes someone, they are in fact acting out violence because they are weak and feeling powerless inside. You used a non sexual analogy. I am talking psycho-sexual politics. When sex is brought into the equation it is invariably about people's own feelings of either being in control or not being in control. Sexual lifestyle is always injected into politics because it is a symbol of control or non-control and people who refer to sexuality in divisive and hateful terms have a reason for doing so-something about that sexual lifestyle they externalize is upsetting them. I am no more being unfair then looking a rapist in the face and saying they rape because they are violent because they are weak and cowardly-no more no less. When it comes to people who use sexual lifestyle as a pretense to discriminate and try intellectualize and justify hatred you bet I will throw it back in their face and say its a personal problem not a religious or political one as much as they would like to hide behind religion or politics to justify what they are doing. Using this political forum as a pretense and platform to intellectualize hatred for the gays is what I am dealing with directly. What I have said is no more unfair then Leafless's generalizations that necessarily slur each and every person who is born gay. It is no more unfair then labelling gays as being abnormal and being singled out for discriminatory treatment. Think it is unfair? Ask yourself this. Why is it and you have seen blatant examples of it, recently in the U.S., why is it, when a politician usually quoting the Christian Bible condemns gays and homo-sexuality, he is himself living a closeted gay life style? How many times do we see people preaching the virtues of a clean Christian life, and trotting off to prostitutes in their spare time? Unlike non sexual issues, when people discuss sex, they necessarily reflect their own sexual attitudes and that makes them fair game to ask-what is it about the sexual lifestyle they condemn that bothers them so much. When we question pedophiles or rapists, we clearly do so because there is a power imbalance and exploitation and violence. In a consenting homo-sexual relationship between adults there is nothing of the sort so why the hatred? Why the need to single it out? Why the need to pass moral judgement on it? How does to consenting adults making love to one another constitute grounds for a discussion about discriminating against gays and calling them morally bad people? Sorry but when I read such diatribes I must ask, what is it that generates someone to feel the need to single out gays and atempt to rationalize that we should discriminate against them and talk about them in a hateful way? Let's not beat around the bush (oops that might be mistaken as pubic hair but that is not what I meant). Not fair? Is it fair to try use Christianity as a pretense to justify hating gays and discriminating against them? I condemn anyone who uses any religion to try justify hating gays. Leafless opens himself up to such comments tonque in cheek or not because all of us are allowed to ask, why the hatred for gays? What really is at the root of such dialogue? Do we have people writing in posts saying hetero-sexuals should be discriminated against? Why only the fixation with gays? Why the preoccupation about what gay people do unless it frightens Leafless. What else would you have me conclude? Would you have me define his attempts at intellectualizing discrimination and hatred as purely religious or political- sorry I am not the one who brought up sexuality-he did. When I read such diatribes I can easily take out the word gay and replace it with blacks, Jews, what-ever-and it comes down to one thing-the person doing the condemning is externalizing his own anxiety and fears outwards on these people because he won't deal with certain feelings internally and I will do this with each and every bigot I come head to head with (oops that could be misconstrued as well). No one, absolutely no one who tries to bastardize Christianity or any religion to justify hating and discriminating against gays is playing fair and they deserve to be called on it for precisely what it is. I am proud that Leafless thinks I am gay. Gays died in the holocaust precisely because they were gay and I honour that. I am not being self-righteous, just saying it like it is when I see someone spreading hatred.

Good grief. Relax, for godsake. I guess that establishes there's a Jewish lobby though! The problem is that through the use of a Jewish lobby, the foreign policy of a major country is being effected by a small percentage of the populace, possibly to the detriment of the major country (US). Israel offers no strategic benefit to the US. It will be interesting to see if the Democrat win will have a negative impact on that policy. This is exactly what I was getting at people like this poster or Gerry who make sweeping generalizations about the alleged Jewish lobby and how it monpolizes power for only the good of a few. The above comments and the comments of Gerry or no different only the above comments are more blatant and less subtle in their blanket generalizations. The above is just the same lie that has been promulgated for 4,000 years that Jews are these sinister evil creatures that manipulate the masses through their nefarious influence. I challenge the above poster to actually substantiate how the Jewish lobby is in fact manipulating foreign policy to the detriment of the U.S. This is clearly a person's subjective feeling. If this poster knew anything about the foreign policy process in the U.S. he would understand that in fact the major lobby groups in the US that influence US foreign policy are not Israel but in fact the US military-industrial complex number one, and in fact, the China lobby as no.2 in terms of the two most influential lobbies. The National Rifle Association other then these two lobby groups is the most powerful and the statistics as to how they are able to get Senators and Congressman to vote and the amounts of money their contribute are public record. The above poster is expressing his subjective opinion based on probably his impressions garnered from reading some anti-Israeli articles on the inter-net as opposed to doing any homework for himself and finding out who in fact lobbies the US congress and senate and how they do it. This is typical of how these idiot conversations start. People just shoot off at the mouth with subjective opinions as to who they think are powerful or influential with no basis and often its just the same old nonsense repeated and recycled over and over again. If you look at the spending of foreign aid to Israel-which clearly this poster has not, he would understand the vast majority of it, was used to subsidize the US military-industrial complex which employs 6 of 10 Americans, and 8 of 10 Americans indirectly and depends on using Israel to test its equipment before it then goes on to sell this equipment. And lest you think the US is the only military-industrial complex it is not, so are Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, North Korea, Iran, India, and of course China and Pakistan and many other countries. If this poster bothered to get past his unsubstantiated biases, he would realize the no. 1 reason for foreign trade is to sell military hardware and to secure oil sources for the first world. Sorry but that has nothing to do with Jews as much as you would like us to think so.

The names of persons in the organizations that openly lobby foreign power brokers in the cause of Israel's interests are easily available on the net. I don't think I feel like doing your work for you in light of your recent accusation, no offense. You didn't answer the subject. You made the statement that the lobby groups were "powerful" and I am calling you on it. You have changed the subject and now pretend all you did was suggest thes elobby groups exist. Stop being a coward. If you make opinion statements suggesting there are powerful Jewish lobby groups back up your point or cease and desist and admit you have no basis to describe them as "powerful" and to infer that somehow Jews conspire to control Canadian foreign policy is b.s. That was the point and no I am not suprised you don't have anything to back up your generalizations-that was the point I was making.

Under international law a state can be reognized one of two ways; de facto or de jure. Obviously Figleaf found what I was saying too confusing so I can explain it in EASY TO UNDERSTAND words. De facto recognition is when something exists because of facts, de jure, is when it is recognized legally. Whay Higgly and Figleaf are either ignorant of or just do not want to adsmit is that on November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine, and in its resolution called on the inhabitants of the country, " to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put the plan into effect." The declaration went on to state, " This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their independent State may not be revoked. It is, moreover, the self-evident right of the Jewish people to be a nation, as all other nations, in its own sovereign State. " What then happened was on May 14, 1948 at 11.59 p.m., when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, pursuant to this declaration, Israel legally declared itself a strate pursuant to the Nov. 20, 1947 declaration at 12.00 a.m. on May 15, 1948. There was NOTHING illegal and NO LAND WAS STOLEN as Higgly deliberately misrepresented as having happened. When Israel declared itself a sovereign state, it did NOT steal or take ANY land by theft or crime and for Higgly to suggest this is absolute b.s. In fact on May 15, 1948,The United States recognized the provisional Jewish government as what is called de facto authority of the Jewish state within minutes. The Soviet Union then granted nto de facto but de jure (legal) recognition almost immediately in 1948 along with seven other states within the next five days (Guatemala, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia). It is a fact that after League of Nations ened in April 1946, s a specific UN resolution was passed to preserved the rights of Jewish people in Palestine (and in Jerusalem particularly). The United Nations, as the succesor to the League of Nations, adopted Article 80 of the UN Charter. Article 80 stated the United Nations forbid any actions taken to try "to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples (emphasis added) or the terms of existing international instruments" at the time of the UN's creation." So under international law, this Article guaranteed that the original British Mandate granted by the League of Nations, including its committments to a homeland for the Jewish people, continued and was transferred into international law at the United Nations. Israel simply declared itself a nation which it was allowed to do pursuant to the UN declaration. It was the Arab League that then said, it would ignore international law, and try take over all of Palestine using unilateral military force to seize all of Palestine (namely the land other then TransJordan already illegally seized by the British and turned into a seperate Arab nation which technically already violated the Leage of Nations mandate and fueled and incited the Arab League into believing the British sided with them). Israel's 1949 border came about from a war. Under international law, it can and it did create de facto borders based on self-defense, something Figleaf seems oblivious to. When you defend yourself legally, you are allowed to do what is necessary to protect yourself. Had the Arab League not attacked, Israel would not have taken over the land it did. After the 1948-49 war, Israel attempted to return the land it won in war, and the Arab League refused it and then exasperated matters by then deciding to throw out 900,000 Jews from its countries and stealing all their property forcing these Jews to head to Israel and now having to live somewhere. In 1950, faced with all these Jews, and the reality that Arabs who left Israel were not returning, Israel then took the land within 1949 Israel and redistributed it to the new Israelis. So technically you had Arab countries stealing property from Jews and Jews then taking over land Arabs had abandon. The land Israel ended up with, had far less value then the property seized by the Arab nations after throwing the 900,000 Jews out. So when Higgly talks about Israel stealing land, he is dead wrong. They did not steal it. They first won it in war started by the Arab League and then took it as a practical response because it had no other choice, onlu after the 900,000 were thrown out and 700,000 ended up in Israel. So for Higgly to tell me to pretend this did not happen and selectively ignore history and try depict this as a one sided event is b.s. It is also a fact that Israel's first eneral elections were held on January 25, 1949: and this is when the provisional State Council was legally replaced by elected Parliament (Knesset) and the Provisional Government was then legally replaed by a regular parliamentary Government. Once this happened, de jure or legal recognition by the United States as opposed to simply de facto recognition was then implemented on January 31, 1949, once the permanent government was sworn in. It is also a fact that it was on January 29, 1949, Britain, then recognized the state of Israel. It is also a fact that in the fall of 1948, Israel applied for membership in the United Nations but failed to win the necessary majority in the Security Council and had to wait until February 1949, to renew its application for membership in the United Nations and Israel was admitted on May 11, 1949. It is a fact during the period of January 1, 1949 to May 11. 1949, 32 States moved to recognize Israel, on top of 20 that had already granted recognition before December 31, 1948. To try revise history and pretend none of this happened is idiocy. To say Israel was created illegally from stolen property is absolute crap. I stand by all my posts and challenge Higgly and Figleaf instead of playing the fools to take one ounce of historic information I have indicated and prove it is wrong. All I have done is go back and read the Belfour Declaration, the United Nations Articles I referred to, and read the historic records anyone can read. I also insist Higgly specify what land was stolen. What Higgly has done are what a lot of intellectually dishonest people do. Because they feel they side with Palestinians and feel Israel should not exist, they then simply state that since Israel should not exist, anything it has is illegal. That is absolute intellectual dishonesty and fabrication. The fact that they feel Palestine should only be for Palestinians does not change history no matter how many times they repeat the same 3 misrepresentations over and over. It is also ironic that what the Arab League now talks about as a peace solution, and represents as land for peace, is simply recognizing the 1949 Israel borders in return for a state in the West Bank and Gaza. Duh it only took them how many years to accept reality? All that is holding things up are one thing and one thing only-the coming about of Arab terrorism-an evolution of history that can not simply be blamed on the exsistence of Israel but has roots in Palestinian nationalism that was reignited by Nazis who left Germany after World War Two and dominated Syrian and Egyptian secret police forces and political systems through-out the 1950's culminating in the creation of the PLO in 1963 by Nasser's secret political police as an attempt not only to eradicate Israel but Jordan as well. Ironically the same Muslim extremists Egypt and Syria created now threaten to topple both countries current regimes. For anyone who points out that Israel is responsible for the creation of Hamas in the past to destabalize the PLO (which is true) they should also keep in mind how many groups supported by Egypt and Syria and Lebanon and Iraq, etc., have also come back to haunt them. In the Middle East the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to be the only one but it is not and never was. The small powerful elites who control property in all the corupted Muslim countries and keep their countries wealth tied up in so very few hands, create the very economic climate causing terrorism. The terrorists are as much a creation of Arab v.s. Arab exploitation as anything Fig or Higgly would like to blame on Israel. One only need look at Pakistan to see one example of how Muslim countries exist as regimes where a few wealthy families own it all. The same is repeated in Tunisia, Morrocco, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, on and on. The seizure of property and monopoly of property in these countries preventing the typical Muslim from working and living are not the result of Israel's existence.

I wonder what you are thinking to convey with this 'de facto' stuff. It simply means 'of fact' as contrasted against 'of law'. In other words "de facto" means 'outside the law'. This can't be unexpected, since as we all know, conquest is illegal under modern international law. With due respect Figleaf this as you call it "de facto stuff" is not what you stated it means nor is your comment that conquest is illegal under modern international law. I will be pleased to explain why that is not so legally in a second response. In this response FigLeaf I want to challenge you to do something Higgly will not do, and that is to look back at what you keep repeating and take me up and go find out if what I am telling you in my past posts on the origins of Israel or what I am about to explain to you now is not true. Also please read what I write because at no time have I ever denied Palestinians have a right to a country or land nor have I presented what I have said in a manner that is against Palestinians. What I have tried to explain to you Figleaf is that the origins of modern day Israel came about as a result of twists and turns in history that are as a result of many questionable developments. It is an historic fact Fig Leaf that in a 1917 letter from British foreign secretary Lord Balfour, written to Lord Rothschild, the British government stated that they were commited to the creation of a a Jewish sovereign state in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration is a fact not fiction. History now shows that while Lord Balfour indicated Britains committment to startingn a Jewish state fortunately, the British government ALSO at the same time was promising Arabs their "freedom" from Turkeythen called the Ottoman Empire, if the Arabs helped the British defeat the Turks in World War One. The Ottoman Empire controlled the Middle East, i.e., what we today call Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, as well as a large chunk of today's Saudi Arabia as well as North Africa. While the British told Jews one thing, they also told the Arabs that they would limit Jewish settlement in Palestine. History shows barely 6 weeks after Lord Belfour wrote to Rothchild and stated the British supported a Jewish state they were making all kinds of promises to Arabs. This is not the first time the British played games and manipulated people for its own needs. That is what the British and French did. They would play tribes and ethnic groups off of one another. After the first world war ended, it is a fact that the League of Nations "assigned" Palestine or the area we now call Israel to the United Kingdom as what was called a "mandated" territory. The Palestinian Mandate initially included the lands that are now Israel and Jordan as I stated and you can find that out for yourself if you take the time to read about the mandate rather then ask me to prove it. It is there in the mandate. If you take the time to read what the League of Nations mandated as Palestine you will see it included all of what is Israel and Jordan and then what happened was that Britain on its own, contrary to and in direct contradiction of its promise to fullfill that mandate, on its own, unilaterally, ignored the mandate, ignored what it promised to do, and simply seized thel land East of the Jordan Riverand created Transjordan. Your friend Higgly is absolutely and utterly wrong when he says Israel stole land. The fact is if anyone stole land, it was the British. They told the League of Nations they would administer Palestine for the League, then broke their promise and took 85% of that land and created a country called Jordan. Ironically, you and Higgly completely ignore this to the point where you ask for proof of it. The proof is called Jordan Figleaf. It still exists. Where do you think it came from and how do you think it came about? The document creating the Palestinian mandate that the British completely breached, incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and in fact promised the creation of Jewish and Arab countries within Palestine. History shows many Arab leaders were initially willing to give Palestine to the Jews if the rest of the Arab lands in the Middle East would be placed under Arab control. It is also a fact that of course the Arabs living in Palestine were of course opposed to Jewish immigration into the territory and the idea of a Jewish homeland. To them this idea that Jews were coming back from Europe was ridiculous. In Muslim culture of dhimmitude, Jews were not considered able to own land or considered on the same level of legal standing as Muslims. The notion that Jews would own land, let alone run their own country in a Muslim world would be seen as a travesty. In dhimmitude, Islam and the state are not seperated and only Muslims could enjoy the right to own land..at best a Jew or Christian could rent the land. Surely you have seen the movie Laurence of Arabia. That should give you a good idea of where Arab nationalism arose from. The British created it to fight the Turks. It was at the same time Arab nationalism was incited by the British, in the 1900's that Palestinian nationality also started to take shape just as the Jewish national movement took shape. The only religion in the Middle East without national aspirations were the Christians because they were already the primary influence in hundreds of countries including Britain and France. Surely you understand there were a never ending series of riots in Palestine, and the British after World War One and then heading into World War Two had lost control of the situation pretty much like the US in Iraq today and just like Iraw today is caught in a civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, Palestine was caught up between Jews and Arabs, but ironically, 85% of Palestine was already seized by the British and given to the Arabs to start TransJordan and what was left, the remaining 15% which is the 1949-1967 Israel, was actually only a small portion of what was supposed to have been divided in the first place. So when your friend Higgly says the Jews stole the land, he is completely wrong not only legally but historically since the League of Nations mandated what and how the land should be divided. As Hitler became a major source of concern to Britain, in 1937, the British recommended partition of the territory. The partition as you should know would have consisted of two small enclaves, one Muslim and one Jewish. Had the Arab League simply recognized this partition, Israel would have been a tiny nation but the notion of any Jewish country or enclave was completely rejected. Then the Nazis add to the mix because the holocaust they would create and could not have been implemented without the assistance of millions of Christians in many nations, left Jews after World War Two with a bloody and desperate need for a Jewish homeland. Yes the Arab world did not feel it should be responsible for these Jews displaced from Europe, but that is history. Once the holocaust happened, it was a fait accompli and Jews of course would return where they originally came from. Its all ironic Figleaf because ifJews who had tried to escapoeNazi Germany were NOT turned back from every European country and the United States, Canada Britain, thousands would not have been forced back to Germany to die along with the other Jews totalling 6 million. The British as you are well aware after World War Two did not want any Jews going to Palestine and yet like all of the nations of Europe had ZERO suggestion as to what to do with the homeless, countryless Jews. Jews could not return to France, Belgium, Holland, Eastern Europe, etc., because all their property had been stolen, and all their relatives wiped out and their houses of worship burned down. Not only that, no country was offering any restitution or replacement of these Jews. The Catholic Church and all the Christian Churches were completely silent as to the plight of the Jews. So you can cry over spilled milk but the fact is Europe allowed a holocaust to come about as a culmination of 4,000 years of killing and persecuting Jews, and then it merely added to the problem refusing to take in Jews after the second war. To this day, stolen money from Jews remains in Swiss Bank accounts while legal actions to try regain this stolen money continue. Read your history Figleaf. In 1947, the British threw their hands up and gave back the problem of Palestine to the newly-founded United Nations, which developed a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. That plan was ratified in November, 1947, Figleaf. Just go read up and look up the date will you instead of denying it. This plan or mandate in fact expired on May 14, 1948 and that is when the British troops pulled out of Palestine for good. This is when the Jews of Palestine then declared the creation of the State of Israel, which was recognized by the United States and Russia. The declaration of the State was done completely legally, pursuant to the UN mandate and pursuant to the UN's declaration, not before. Read your time lines. What you are mixing up is that the Arab League of Nations then refused to recognize the validity of Israel and invaded. They challenged the right of the United Nations and argued that as a result of the mandate ending they felt they could unilaterally impose legal authority over ALL of Palestine. This is why there was in fact a year-long war that culminated in the 1949 borders of Israel and what you call "defacto stuff". By initiating war to seize all of Palestine, under international law, Israel had the right to defend itself and now occupy land to protect itself from being killed by the invading Arab nations. That is the legal irony. Had the Arab League said, fine, keep your little enclave, Israel would have never ended up with the land it had. Because the Arab League decided to go all for nothing and gambled that it could easily push out and kill the Jews, it lost. The 1949 norders of Israel were legally obtained through war something I will explain in another post since you do not understand international law. So stop trying to hem and haw and ignore history. The fact is 1949 Israel came about because the Arab League gambled and lost. It is that simple even if you and Higgly will not accept history.

Come, come Rue. Can we not all have our lands expropriated for the greater good? Wasn't the Sultan's land registry a de facto statement of ownership? Why else would his subjects submit to it? And didn't the British re-write land deeds based on the Turkish registry? Admit defeat Rue. Israel is built on stolen land. There you go again Higgly. I actually take the time to try explain something to you and you completely ignore it and then make a comment without any legal basis, i.e., that Israel stole land. As explained Israel bought land legally. Then as a result of the Arab League invading Israel to wipe it out, the Arab League decision to try force a one sided unilateral extermination of Jews, back-fired. The reason Israel ended up as it is today, ironically is precisely because the Arab League's decision to unilaterally invade, back-fired on it. You can try ignore historyand engage in b.s. Higgly but you have been called on it. The next time you try use a corupted inaccurate registry to suggest a legal basis for ownership smarten up and read about what it is you are passing off as a legal precedent. As for your comment that the British re-wrote land deeds based on Turkish registry, they did a lot of illegal things Higgly that are not recognized by international or domestic law. If you care to read how the British corupted the registry and used it to protect and consolidate power for its puppets read and educate yourself. The point Higgly which seems to fly over that head of yours is that the registry you claimed was the legal basis to prove Israel stole land, does not and can not and when this was clearly explained to you, you as usual play the fool.

If you had any balls you would be addressing the topic and not this heterosexual poster. Obviously you don't. Only a homosexual would post the type of post you did trying to belittle, embarrass and intimidate in a truly homosexual fashion. Actually I did respond directly to what you said. Leafless I also note in your response you became obsessed about my testacles which again proves my point. Tsk tsk. Listen Leafless, you started a post but it is painfully obvious you are engaging in expressing hatred about gays and their lifestyle and not engaging in debate as to a political issue. Not only do I have the "balls" to call you on it, I also say without hesitation you are a hate mongerer because you can't come to grips with your own unresolved issues of being gay and I think your last comments to me evidence that. If you think my analysis is unfair then think before you write. Think about why you attack gay people with such nasty generalizations. You aren't the first nor will you be the last anti-gay basher who in his late 60's will finally come to terms with himself. Until then if you can't deal with it, do us all a favour and stay in the closet and keep yourself away from gays because in case you haven't noticed, they have the right to live in peace and freedom and do what ever you think it is you do as an alleged straight man. p.s. I would have told you my last post was tongue in cheek but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too. Miss Jay rules.

Not that anyone cares but if you really want to know accurately how land ownership came into Jewish hands all you have to do is go and read about it. What you would find is that by the end of the 19th century, land really belonging to Arab peasants was being misappropriated to greedy Arab and Turkish landlords most of whom were absentee land-lords. At this same time the Zionist movement would have started its activities of helping Jews return to Israel or what was then still called Palestine. Most history books guess that the population of Palestine at the end of the 19th century was around 500,00. Probably 80% would have been Muslim, 10% Christian, and 5 % Jewish . Historic land records indicate that in 1882 Jewish land owners had 22,500 dunums of land out of the 26,323,000 dunums of land that was defined as Palestine, or .09% of the land. By 1900, 50,000 Jews then lived in Palestine, concentrated in Jerusalem and Jaffa. In 1990, records show twenty-two Jewish settlements consisting of 218,000 dunums, or .8% of the land Now keep in mind under Ottoman laws, they defined "miri" lands as the land which could be used for agricutlure.. Under this legal systrem to secure ownership to thismiri or farmland you would have to pessiss it, and work it for ten consecutive years. If a farmer with this kind of claim to land didn't farm it for 3 consecutive years (unless it was because the farmer had been drafted into the army or was resting the land for fallow) the land would then be referred to as makhlul which ment the Sultan would take back possession of the land and then usually transfer the rights to a friend of the Sultan or in theory another farmer. This law was intended to pressure farmers into continually using their land and lot letting it go to waste because if it was not being used, it couldn't generate taxes. It is this Ottaman legal system that then became corupted and saw large-landowning friends of the Sultan grab all the land at the expense of the peasants or fellaheen. It was also during this time Jews started buying the land. They came into a world where rich Muslims were exploiting poor Muslims. Jews following the law bought their land legally from who-ever owned it. Land records show that from the end of the 19th century to the year 1948, Jews LEGALLY purchased roughly 2 million of the 26 million dunams that made up Palestine outside Jordan. Jordan which consisted of 85% of Palestine was simply seized by the British and turned into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The land the British seized after breaking the Belfour Declaration and their promise to the League of Nations, simply was taken by the King of Jordan who owned all of it and Jordan did not allow either Jews or Christians to own land. Also keep in mind that prior to the Ottoman Empire, dhimmitude or apartheid was enforced by the Muslims who would not allow either Jews or Christians to own land. What the Jews immigrating to Palestine did was make sure they purchased land that was cultivable. In fact most of Palestine was a big swamp full of malaria and mosquitoes and abandoned. Jews farmed the land. Of course many of the Arab farmers were not even farmers but goat herders. Goat herders drift and the goats eat anything they can get their mouths on leaving the land barren. The land records show that Jewish land acquisition was focused in the valley and coastal regions between 1920 to 1936. Land was also purchased in the Galilee and in a small area between Beersheba and Gaza. In 1948, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip (320,000 dunams) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan illegally seized the West Bank/Judea-Samaria (6 million dunams) with Britain's full approval. Up to 1939, the records show that 75% of the land bought by Jews and probably even more, was done by private individuals or companies and not contraray to the myths spread to this day, purchased by not insthe Jewish Agency or any zionist agencues. Whay you should also know and someone should tell Higgly if he actually cares, is that these land transfers were NEVER recorded in sub-district land registry offices, from official registered transfers by their Arab vendors. Between 1932 and 1948, at least 65% of the land by Jews in Palestine, all done legally, was purchased from resident Palestinian Arabs and NOT from the corupt absentee landlords who would have lived in Beirut, Cairo, Damascus or Alexandria. What happened was that rich corupt absentee landlords exploited the masses. Jews came into this environment and bought land from people who needed the money. Then what happens is people who do not understand the history of the purchase of the land, revise history through their ignorance and simplify it as simply Jews stealing land from Palestinians. On May 1948, when Israel became a foreign nation, Jewish land ownership would rise from 8% of Palestine to 79%, simply because of a cruel act of history by the Arab League which Higgly and Fig Leaf can pretend does not exist but the rest of the world now knows as history. When the Arab League told Arabs in Israel in 1948 to leave, they stated there would be a short war, and when they returned all Jews would be killed or thrown out of Israel and all Jewish land would be given to Arabs. This of course did not happen and the Arabs who left now found themselves homeless. It is a fact that the vast majority of Arabs who left never spoke to Jews or were involved in any kind of violence. They left as a result of false rumours planted by their fellow Arabs many of whom were looking to steal the land once the Jews were thrown out, hoping to take advantage of the confusion. The rest is history. Israel offered in 1948 to give back the land to the Arabs who left but it is a legal and historic fact that the Arab League told Israel to stuff it forcing Israel to war. By the time the war was over, the Arab League nations then decided to expel 900,000 Jews from the Muslim world and seize their property illegally forcing 200,000 of them to move homeless to the US and Europe while the remaining 700,000 fled to Israel penniless. They had to be housed somewhere. The State of Israel's 1949 borders came about through war and under international law this is called de facto borders. What then happened was that in 1950, Israel past a law called the Law of Absentees’ Property. Under this law, the rights to all real and personal property of Arabs who left Israel were given to Israelis, who of course would either be those 700,000 refugees from the Muslim world, or survivors of the holocaust. It is this law that in fact causes many to say it was unfair to Arabs outside Israel and it probably was but you must also keep in mind before this land was seized, the Arabs who left were offered the land back but refused it thinking it would be unthinkable going back to a country of Jews who they considered the enemy. The Arabs that did choose to return or remain in Israel were given FULL land ownership. This leads me back to my original hypothesis which Higgly was not able to debate and could only revert to name calling and that is- that historically this series of events was both unfair to Arabs who felt they could not return to Israel once it became a Jewish nation, and Jews who had their property stolen by Muslim countries and found themselves expelled without passports and no place to go but Israel although some did follow relatives in Europe and the U.S. (Canada did not allow Jews in as refugees or immigrantsin the 40's as McKenzie King was an open anti-semite who compared Jews to vermin) For those of us who appreciate the cruelty of history we realize in this case it dispossessed two sets of people. To this day some prefer to revise history and make idiot comments when it is pointed out to them it is not one sided or feign ignorance as to the role Britain and the Arab League played in this fiasco. While I debate Myata and Blackdog on this, I agree with them both that, it is pointless trying to revise the past. The obvious practical reality is that a homeland out of the Gaza and West Bank needs to be created for Palestinians and the Arab League which has used Palestinians as pawns for the last 60 years and turned their backs on the Palestinians should be the first to fund this nation. The millions in aid that could have gone to the building of this nation but was stolen by the PLO's corupt officials should be confiscated from its Swiss and French bank accounts. The French who looked the other way while billions of aid were funnelled into their banks by the PLO should return it to the Palestinian Authority to use it to build its nation. An economic free trade zone between Jordan, Israel and Palestine needs to be created. The solution is to let Palestinians go back to work in the West Bank, Israel and in Jordan. Right now Jordan does not allow Palestinians in to work. As a result of Hamas and the terrorist activities of 30 other splinter organizations, military security makes it impossible for Israel to assist Palestinians work in Israel and until Hamas and these splinter terrorist groups put down their guns no peace can come about. The problem is Hamas and Fatah and the many other splinter groups live in the Past. They still believe they can seize all of Israel and throw out all the Israelis. In the interim, millions of Palestinians who know terrorism gets them nothing, sit and rot in unemployment, many either leaving for the US, Canada or Europe or turning to smuggling guns or drugs the only two kinds of employment left to them.

Well once again Higgly raises a subject he obviously does not understand, namely the Ottoman Registry system for land. In fact the registry system Higgly refers to defined the soverign landowner to be the Sultan, similiar to us calling it crown lands in Canada. In the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan's tax and land agents enforced tax collection for rent of the land. In fact, The Land Registration Law of 1858, passed by the Turks was created to identify land so it could be taxed and to identify people so they could be forced into the Sultan's army. As usual Higgly puts his foot in his mouth due to his ignorance of history because anyone who understands this law also understands that only a very small proportion of land transactions/titles were ever recorded, and they came about from old people, foreigners or rich people who avoided military service by paying rent on land. The actual index of land owners or this great registry Higgly refers to never existed! Higgly hasn't a clue what he is talking about because if he did he would realize this is the last way you would want to prove Palestines owned land! It was completely inaccurate. The way it really worked, was that if a person wanted to avoid paying taxes, i.e., say you owed 1000's of dollars (dunums)..you would under-report your actual amount of land to avoid paying the actual amount. More to the point, people who did register land abused the process by using the names of dead people or fake names that were made up. Because of this wide spread abuse, the elite upper class figured out how to dominate and control the registry. This elite upper class would then filed whole villages in their names, pass down title to the property to their families maintaining unfair ownership and control. What Higgly has not a clue about is that the Beduin of Palestine lived in tents and roamed through-out the deserts as they still do today. They would not show up in any registry. The Fellahheen, or closest things to farmer peasants or serfs, who did live in villages would have been the equivalent of freehold owners of the soil which they cultivated and their title or ownership would not have been fairly or properly registered, let alone registered at all. The Belladeen, would have been the other category of people who livedin cities in what can best be described as freehold homes. The fact is the land registry system Higgly has referred to was a legal joke and completely inaccurate and if anything was a corupted, inaccurate system that allowed a few rich people to corupt the system and keep the vast majority of people in servitude. So to conclude Higgly is full of b.s. The registry he refers to could not prove what Palestinians really owned and from a legal point of view has no legal authority precisely because of its lack of accuracy. It is NOT considered binding under any international or domestic laws in Israel or Jordan. Once again Higgly shoots off about something he knows nothing about. I will finish my response in another post.

Homosexuality is not part of my Western ideologies. Liberalism is the cause of North America's immorality. Proof of this is the liberals fixation concerning implementing gay marriage in Canada, all part of their master plan on 'how to destroy heterosexual society'. I believe Western heterosexual society will wake up before it's to late and turf out forever all those heterosexual hating Liberals. Leafless with due respect, when you write such posts all I can't help but think you are either gay and putting us all on or are a repressed homo-sexual struggling to come to terms with your attraction to Tom Cruise. This is one Western Heterosexual who openly defends and supports Gays and sees nothing wrong with it and guess what I like Stephen Harper but not in a sexual way!!! I love you think it makes me a liberal to believe Gays are humans with feelings and the right to live in freedom. How do I break this to you...there are gays who are conservative. They aint all communists or liberals. p.s. I know your secret and why you call yourself Leafless. (Adam naked and in the buff for all the boys to see)

You. Be careful who you describe as a Rich Jew supporting Hitler. Someone like me actually reads your drivel and will call you out on it.

WTH? There is a very powerful Jewish lobby in Canada and the USA which leverages it's power for political reasons. You seem to agree...or, are you calling me "anti-Semitic"? Not really sure. And if you need a lesson on how to quote other posters properly PM me. It's very easy. This is precisely the kind of response such posts begat. Just so we are clear, your comment that there is a powerful Jewish lobby in Canada and the US which leveragesits power for political reasons is absolute and utter b.s. and the kind of racist generalization that flows from idiots who post conspiracy theories that generalize about races. You have got to be kidding. You are not aware of the Israel lobby? These are real people. You've made yourself look very ignorant over this. No please educate me. Give me specifics. Please.

Marginalization and isolation (for example, severing foreign aid to the PA) are also counterproductive as that creates the kind of environment where extremism floursihes. If the west and Israel are truly interested in peace and an end to hatred, they'd be trying to find ways to help Palestinians create a stable civil society, which is a prerequisite for peace. Without stability and opportunity there's no future. no future, no peace. Here we part ways. Israel both directly and indirectly through a vast peace network of associations and groups has communicated with Palestinians continuously and have tried to set up gras roots organizations. Each time they have such as building roads, houses, joint water pipes, green-houses, or engaged in hsopital exchanges, Hamas has destroyed these attempts. With due respect its a two way street and Palestinians have not done what they can to reach back fearing looking like traitors in the eyes of Hamas. They too need to make some bold moves to distance themselves from Hamas if they are to have any future, and there claims to alienation and despair, although something I would never be insensitive too, are not an excuse and can not be an excuse for looking the other way when it comes to Hamas the same reason Israelis can't give in to vile extremists in their nation either. Now as for Israel and Syria, again Black Dog you should really look at Syria's track record with Israel to understand why Israel has not been able to dialogue with it. For the record, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Sharon, Rabin and a host of others, unofficially tried conversing with Syria to no avail. You must understand Syria has absolutely no interest in dialoguing with Israel and considers it an enemy to destroy not co-exist with. You are talking about a nation that hosted the Gestapo and SS after World War Two and has openly embraced and financed some of the worst anti-semites the world has had to offer. Syria has always been interested in not just posessing Israel but Lebanon and parts of Jordan. It is not exactly a bastion of democracy and when it does not feud with Israel feuds with Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. The current regime lives in complete paranoid fear of the Muslim Brotherhood and contrary to popular belief is as untrusting of Shiites and Hezbollah as any other Sunni nation. Syria is a country whose economy has collapsed, and basically survives through currying favour with terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and running opium and hash hish through its borders. Right now it will not dialogue with Israel and has no intention to. This again is not a situation of Israel refusing to dialogue with it. That said, for there to be any hope for peace, ALL sides must find ways to dialogue. I think Israel has a more realistic chance dialoguing with Jordan, Egypt, Mr. Abbas and moderate Muslim nations then it does Syria or Iran. Syria by the way is run by a very cruel secret police apperatus that could turn against Baby Assad at a moment's notice. Syria is a mess. Diplomatically speaking, Israel hasn't done itself any favours by rejecting overtures from Syria, and its action against Lebanon (well-ntentione dor not) did not improve its standing. My perception is that the militaristic character of Israel and its past successes on the battlefield have given imbued politicians with a deep faith in the power of force to solve problems. It's an unrealistic viewpoint to say the elast.

It is getting a little desperate when Blair asks for help from Syria and Iran. What will Iran say? "No problem! Just leave us alone while we make out nuclear weapon." Don't forget this is the same Mr. Blair who went hands and knees to kiss up to my close and dear friend Mummy Ghaddafi in Libya to get the oil turned back on. No telling who one is willing to sleep with after a few drinks.

That is a fair point Black Dog and logically stated and many have postulated what you have. He does run the risk of making things worse. I also concede White Doors' point in that many people find such humour juvenile at best. My favourite comedy is Monty Python. I believe to be funny you don't need to swear or be hard edge but can make a mockery by dry wit. I will always admire Monty Python for its ability to make anything and everything absurd. Then again I liked the Three Stooges so what the f.. do I know.

That is a fair point Black Dog and logically stated and many have postulated what you have. He does run the risk of making things worse.

Thank you Caucasian Doors. I am actually not half as self-righteous as I sound. I drink my prune juice too. Just some days I get grumpy with some of the posts. I am the first to admit I am full of it too, but geez some days I want to bite someone's head off. Then I remember there's this thing called freedom of speech! Lol.

Well actually your suggestion to start shipping people back out of here is the kind of dumb comment that I am sure no person who fought for this country in World War Two would appreciate. The last thing they need is you spewing hatred in response. The point is, some people have turned this into a political issue by trying to suggest the cross is a Christian symbol and so if we only show the cross, then it unfairly favours one religion. So let us deal with that postulation without engaging in equally as ignorant responses. The point is, crosses were used during World War One and Two to commemorate war dead, the majority who were Christians. So to now censor depictions of the cross, not only denies history, but reads in a religious prejudice that does not exist. I doubt very highly any non Christian war veteran is offended by crosses. I think the real point is, parents who are obsessed with religious equality have to understand there is a time and place. We are at the point now, where many parents in schools want history revised to suit their political opinions. Sometimes we have to understand that history did contain symbols that we might today find politically inappropriate but in their time, had a different meaning. The cross yes is a Christian symbol, but if the military knew someone was not Christian they would not put one up if I am not mistaken and if they did, surely it was not done to impose any religious belief on these brave soldiers. I think some symbols such as the cross, became generic symbols for rememebring the dead akin to the rifle with the helmet left on the butt of the rifle. What is really important is that we remember the effort of our veterans in the way our veterans are comfortable with the symbols.

Why is it a given that he is isn't? But to answer your question, Palestinian public opinion, according to the poll data, shows that despite the election of Hamas (which implies support for its ends and violence) the Palestinian public is squarely in favour of diplomacy and the two-state solution. The more Hamas chafes against this and the more their instrangience feeds internal instability, the less appealing they'll be to the electorate. My point, if there is one, is that we westerners tend to make deep judgements on issues like this based on superficial impressions and simplistic interpretations of the information we get. Taking the views of extreme or fring politicians and treating them as gospel ("how can we negotiate with these people?") leaves little room for nuance and is, in the end, completely counterproductive. Is anyone opposed to the spilling of blood for their cause? You're not. Most of the posters on this board are not. So what is it you're saying? Black Dog on this one I am with you in your postulations and hope you are right. I understand why August feels the way he does and August you ae a cold brutal realist and yes the inevitable clash between Western and Eastern cultures is inevitable and it is coming to a head, but I truly believe as much as it appears Palestinians support Hamas, Black Dog is right, deep down inside they know they can't exterminate Israel and a lot of this is bombastic rhetoric. Don't get me wrong-I take Hamas very seriously and wide-spread anti-semitism in the Middle East very seriously, and I do not doubt as long as Hamas continues as is, there is serious concern BUT Palestinians are also fatigued and they are not that different then Israelis in that respect, they are worn from constant years of turmoil and the Hamas noise and beligerence can only go so far. I think it is crucial Israel smarten up now and use some smart psychological tactics and understand why Hamas exists and how it fuels and incites Palestinians, and avoids feeding their frenzy. I think the current PM of Israel is spent and has no fresh ideas. I think Israel needs another Rabin, someone the public trusts, to take a bold initiative and make Hamas obsolete by sitting with Abbas, Egypt and Jordan. Egypt and Jordan have as much vested interest in seeing to it Hamas and Hezbollah are neutralized as does Israel. For that matter, Egypt and Jordan and many other Sunni Muslim nations are as apprehensive as Iran as is Israel. Israel has to be bold now and call on some countries it may not really trust but has good relations with such as Spain, Turkey and Russia. Menachem Begin and Yithak Rabin were not afraid to make initiatives, and say what you want about Sharon, but he was in the process of making a bold initiative in the West Bank to remove settlers, when he was felled by his strike. I do not see this kind of boldness in Olmert. It couldbe it is because he is not a military man and in Israel, whether we like it or not, the people who have been most instrumental in bring about peace with the exception of Golda Meir, have been former military generals.

Chrissy this Jew says its o.k. don't worry. By the way Chrissy if you want to see what Cohen is getting at you only have to read the posts on this site talking about "conspiracies" it didn't take them too long to evolve into conspiracy theories about Jews that are as idiotic as what Cohen is trying to poke fun of. A lot of people won't get it Chrissy but some days I am so frustrated with some peoples' ignorance towards Jews, I kind of understand why Cohen followed this approach. I think its Andy Kaufman and Lenny Bruce mixed in one myself. It is a form of comedy that is brutal and hard edge. I think it also comes about as a result of the pervasive trend for reality television. A milder version of it can be seen on CBC from Quebec where Quebec comedians set people up with sight gags and then point out the camera to them after they play the joke on them. I am sure you have seen that show or maybe you rememebr Candid Camera. Cohen is just taking these devices and being hard core political with them as you say.

WTH? There is a very powerful Jewish lobby in Canada and the USA which leverages it's power for political reasons. You seem to agree...or, are you calling me "anti-Semitic"? Not really sure. And if you need a lesson on how to quote other posters properly PM me. It's very easy. This is precisely the kind of response such posts begat. Just so we are clear, your comment that there is a powerful Jewish lobby in Canada and the US which leveragesits power for political reasons is absolute and utter b.s. and the kind of racist generalization that flows from idiots who post conspiracy theories that generalize about races. The "Jewish" lobby as you call it is a racist term. The fact is Jews support many interest groups that have Christian, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc., in the groups as well. For the record, the B'Nai B'brith when it does lobby, lobbies in association with other groups including Muslim and Christian against discrimination. I suppose this ignorant poster would have you believe the Canadian Jewish Congress of Canada-Israel Committee are this power lobby group. In fact the Canada-Israel Commitee is not that big, and has no more influence that many Muslim interest groups in regards to foreign policy. The Canadian Jewisg Congress is actually not that powerful a lobby group at all compared to other lobby groups. I call out this poster to cease and desist his idiotic generalizations and singling out Jews who use the political process legally as if it is sinister or evil or negative or unfair because that is precisely what all these conspiracy talks always come down to, a disguised way to regurgitate a 4,000 year old racist b.s. theory that Jews are trying to take over the world. Change the name from Jews to who-ever you want, Christians, Gays, Blacks, etc., and it may mutate in who it singles out but it comes to one thing, baseless, subjective, negative generalizations designed to slur people for following a certain religion, lifestyle, etc. You can go on the inter-net and find millions of geniuses like the original poster and this latest one speculating on powerful lobby groups but they are simply people who generalize based on their own unsubstantiated generalizations. I am calling this poster out and DEMANDING he prove how he knows Jews have a powerful lobby group. Show us what objective proof you have to substantiate this or cease and desist.

Well it didn't take long for your true anti-semitic agenda to come out of your conspiracy postulations. So we understand one another, you are a pathetic racist looking to use these posts as a way to spread your poison. For anyone to respond to you further wastes their valuable time. And for anyone who cares Max Warburg was a German banker who at no time supported Hitler. There was an anti-semitic pamphlet spread about a "Sidney" Warburg as well. No Jewish member of the Warburg family ever supported Hitler for obvious reasons. The above poster is spreading vile white-supremist trash you can find in Aryan Race literature. Please do not encourage him.

Further to my last post I want to point out another reason to condemn anyone who thinks they can write off the Middle East as a problem between to pagan savages and depict Christians as being able to sit back and watch the savages kill each other. The ignorance of some people in regards to the Middle East staggers me. To start with there are about 35,000 Christians in the West Bank. There's also about 3,000 in Gaza and probably around 12,500 or so in East Jerusalem. The poster who started this thread seems to forget if he just lets the pagan savages kill each other, they may end up killing his fellow Christians in the process. And once we are on that topic, Christians were murdered, raped and persecuted by the PLO in Lebanon between 1975 and 1982. The original poster should perhaps read about how Hamas and Hezbollah have treated Christians. And before any of you tell me Christians side with the PLO, some have but things have changed because Christians have witnessed how the following sites have been damaged and treated with complete disrespect by the PLO; Abraham's Oak Holy Trinity Monastery Rachel's Tomb Joseph's Tomb Church of St. Nicholas Jericho Monastery to name but a few. Despite my anger, I happen to believe that this original poster does not speak for or on behalf of Christians. I was merely pointing out the outrageousness of his postulation. The fact is there are many Christians living in Israel and the West Bank, and Christians also suffer from persecution by Muslims and have lived in the same apartheid dhimmitude as Jews did in the Middle East and have suffered the same persecution. So I happen to believe this is not just a Muslim-Jewish savage fight. It is an area where all three of these mono-theistic religions have rights and historic sites and all three must be treated with equal respect and dignity. I have said it from day l- this is not simply a cock fight between Muslims and Jews and while Christians only add up to 1.2% of the Palestinian population, they are still an historic and vital part of the equation as are Christian sites. If the poster feels the Christian world will turn its back on Bethlehem and Nazareth and Jerusalem, three areas of significant historical meaning to Christians, he is mistaken. Its ridiculous it has to be Jew such as myself topoint out how important the Christian equation is in the Middle East and how it can not be forgotten and how if there is to be peace, Christians will and must play a pivotal role.

I would say many people feel this way. However, 'banning religion' will never work. Just as 'banning homosexuality' wouldn't work. I'd rather see an all out debate about 'Which is the one true god?" (Or scripture...and the evidence for or against the existence of god, and 'truthfulness' of all religious texts, to be put to a worldwide trial) And many people also feel religion is very benefical and gives them the strength to be forgiving. As a christian, I feel the gay lifestyle is wrong. However, I am not a 'hateful' lemming nor do I hate gays, which is the pet stereotype usually trotted out on this topic. For Elton to lash out at religions, it only shows his prejudices. How does it show prejudice. He did not say anything offensive about any religious values of views particular to your faith or any other faith in a way that is negative. He criticized organized religion. Sharkman do you even know what it means to be prejudice? Show me where he has said anything negative about your religion spefically. Then again you are the same loving Christian who trys to tell me I am out to lunch because I find a fellow Christian repulsive when he writes of Jews and Muslims as pagans who should be left to kill each other and that Christians are superior. That you find acceptable. Yah I have your number and please I know, you are a loving compassionate person. Give it a rest.