Rue

"I think I should serve notice Rue that this cannot go on forever. I am finding myself correcting errors in reading and perception due largely it seems to your inability to comprehend and to develop rational coherent thought. " That is it Higgly> The best you can do is name call? O.k. your pee pee is bigger then mine. Settled. Now if someone wants to debate what I have been stated, other then simply to say I am wrong and they are right, I would be pleased too debate with them.

For the simple reason that your example is so subjective and so general, it could not be enforced.

Let us get the term straight if you excuse the pun, he is a pedophile with repressed homo-sexual feelings. If he was a healthy homo-sexual he would not be harassing 16 year old boys nor would he be engaging in homophobic diatribes to try compensate for his conflicting feelings. I do not blame gay people or confuse his problems with their lifestyle.

In the interests of full disclosure......I am a habs fan but will go to see the leafs if I get free tickets from a client and they include dinner. I too am a Habs fan but would go if given tickets but I won't hold my breath because my clients can't afford the tickets either. Sigh.

Yegads! I agree with Higgly! This could become a pattern!

"Isreal asserts that it did not expel the Palestinians which implies they would have been welcome to live within the Israel state if they stayed in 1948. However, in 2006 Israel insists that these same people are not welcome to live in Israel because they would undermine the Jewish state. Seems to me that if the Palestinians had stayed then Israel would have to deal with the same demographic problem that it uses as an excuse to deny their return today. What changed? Why was the demographic problem not a concern in 1948 but such a concern now?" I will answer your questions which deal with two issues. Let's deal with the second part of your question. Anyone who studies Middle East politics and the future of Israel knows that if Israel is to remain a democratic state and the majority of its population becomes Muslim, this makes remaining a Jewish state problematic. That is the irony. In the Muslim world, since countries are not democratic and practice dhimmitude or religious apartheid and do not seperate Islam from the State, this will never be an issue. Likewise Riverwind, in a Christian country, where Christians just assume they are a majority, they too do not worry about such things. But here is how I answer that question Riverwind. Hwo do Christians in Canada feel when they see that the majority of Canadians no longer want Christian things in the law or at school? How do Canadians feel when they see Muslims or people from other religions coming to Canada and demanding to opt out of values and traditions that Canadians take for granted? See it is for me highly amusing to see people point out what Israel faces if it wants to remain a Jewish state, because its usually the same people who if their own culture is in danger are the first to squawk and complain about immigration and those other people moving in the neighbourhood. For me Riverwind as a Jewish Canadian, I choose not to live in Israel for the same reason I do not want religion in schools or in my government. I prefer to live in a mluti-cultural society where people of all faiths and political beliefs can live together. In an ideal world, the Muslim religion would be seperated from state, and Muslims would not follow Sharia law and impose dhimmitude and would promote democratic multi-cutlural societies and Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastreans, Hindus, Buddists, Communists, Trade Unionists, Feminists, Gays, etc., would all be treated fairly and as equals and there would be human rights codes and tribunals, etc. It aint gonna happen. So yah, Israelis know, that to retain their Jewish identity and prevent themselves from being swallowed up in a Muslim culture that treats them as second class citizens and has no history of religious tolerance-it will have to maintain a seperate life and society from Muslims. One day, maybe Muslims and Jews will not need to live in religious states. Until that time, to suggest Muslims can do it but Jews shouldn't is a double standard and as hippocritical as say in Ontario where we fund a Catholic school board, but no other religious school board. It is no different then the aboriginal people saying, to preserve our culture, we do not want to be assimilated. It is no different then Quebecers who say, we do not want to be swallowed up in anglo society, we wish to preserve certain distinct attributes of our culture. Why it is such a big deal when Jews try to do it is beyond me. I personally think, it is because deep down inside, Christians can not accept the notion of Jews as equals and wanting the same things-freedom, and a country. Why? Because Christians take it for granted they dominate the political institutions in the countries they live in and if they don't-they act no differently then Jews. Now tell me would you tell Christians in Sudan because they are a minority, they have no right to live apart from the Muslim majority? How selective are we with nationalism? What I am saying necessarily is this, if we are to be logical and fair, either Muslims, Christians and Jews, all must live world-wide in non religious states where all are treated equal, or if that is not possible, then stop with the double standard in suggesting only Muslims can have countries, but Jews can not. Now to answer the first part of your question; I don't think it is helpful in a meaningful dialogue as to the conflict in Israel and Palestine, to lump Israelis into one category and as having one opinion and all thinking the same way or denying Palestinians were expelled. Riverwind most Jewish historians, and especially those who you might want to say are sympathetic to Israel existing openly talk about the expulsion of Palestinians. It is a fact that Israel readily admits that 711,000 Palestinians were displaced as a result of Israel coming into existence. Where the debate comes Riverwind, is not in the fact that 711,000 end up displaced but in the manner in which the expulsions are depicted and in that regard one of the major points missed, is that the majority of Palestinians left based on two things; i-a false story planted by Dr. Hussein that Zionists massacered Palestinians, causing about 300,000 to flee before 1948, and the fact that the Arab league instructed Palestinians to leave telling them there would be a brief war, and they could come back after. If your point is it is unfair these Palestinians were displaced, of course it is. It is as unfair as any refugees displaced as a result of wars world-wide. But where the debate comes in is when we talk about the Palestine displacement, we also have to talk about 900,000 Jews thrown out of Muslim countries in the Middle East, of whom, 600,000 fleed to Israel. Yes in an ideal world, if those 600,000 had not been thrown out and been forced to live in Israel, ironically there would have been more of a possibility of taking back many of those 711,000 Palestinians. But here is the point. 77% of Palestine was given to Muslims in the country of Trans-Jordan in direct violation of the League of Nations mandate. with the remaining 23% of the land, had the Arabs followed the belfour declaration, they would have been given to additional enclaves and all Jews would have ended up with was a sliver of land. The Arab League chose to gamble and go all or nothing and reject that proposal. In hindsight I am sure they regret they made that decision but here we are 60 years later and the Muslim world is still refusing to accept it lost a war and that it can not remove Israel from existence and that is what it comes down to. This is not a matter of one side of victims. It is a matter of Jews and of Muslims who both live in the Middle East. Nothing is stopping Palestinians from starting a nation in the West Bank and the Gaza. Nothing prevented the Arab League from taking in Palestinians. The decision to continue to embrace violence and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist is a political decision. Think about it. If Palestinians had used Ghandi's tactics think how different the situation would have turned out. Now when you talk about Palestinians being expelled, I would say most people agree both Palestinians and Jews, were displaced as a result of political events beyond both their control and the only solution today is to put the violence to an end, create a Palestinian state, learn to live with the Israeli state, forge an economic union and prosper through cooperation. Now I ask you who is running t.v. shows, radio shows, newspaper articles, symposiums, denying the holocaust, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, calling on the attack of Jews world-wide? Do Israelis ask you to attack Muslims world-wide? You hear me saying we should wipe Muslims off the face of the earth? No what you hear from me and I dare say the majority of rational people whether they be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, what-ever, is that any organized religion breeds misunderstanding and intolerance. And if you are curious, in the synagogue I was a member of for awhile before I resigned, we prayed for peace with Palestinians and in our discussions with Muslims at peace and inter-cultural meetings, we made it clear we respected their right to want a country and to be left in peace and we would say we simply want the same thing. Moderate Muslims had no problem with that. I was part of a peace network that brought together Palestinians and Israelis. I know its possible. The problem River is that extremists as you know easily can sabotage the process. If you believe nothing else River believe this from me, I watched people blow up. Once you see both Palestinians and Israelis blow up into parts the same way from a bomb, if that doesn't teach you they both are equally as cursed and neither is right or wrong, I don't know what can. And so to answer you River, if you talk to Israelis, if you talk to Jewish historians, they don't deny Palestinians were expelled and that Palestinians today suffer. All they want you to do is not simplify it as being solely as the result of Israel existing. All they are asking you to do is look at all the factors including how Muslims do not get along with each other and how Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen say one thing about Palestinian independence but say another when Westerners are not listening. In fact I would go so far as to say Arab nationalism frightens Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan far more then it does Israel. That is why for example, Saudi Arabia is about to embark on a very expensive project to build fences along the Iraq border and eventually will be what the French try convince the Lebanese and Syrians to do and exactly why Egypt spends quadra-billions a year in security to keep its people under strict control.

"Rue, whenever an Israelite such as yourself starts playing the anti-semitism card, all I see is a little white flag of surrender." I stated and I state again if you enter into discussions about the state of Israel and use that as a platform to criticize the Jewish religion and Jews I will call you on it. Your little ethnic dig is telling Higgly. "My sources for the post were two well-researched books by recognized and respected Jewish historians - Segev is from Hebrew University and Shlaim is at Oxford. Both worked from primary historical documents - cabinet papers, letters, diaries, published speeches, what have you. This is solid historical research." Well actually what you did Higgly was to go out and find two historians that opine the version of history you think is the right one and of course are now tryying to infer because you could cut and paste out of context what these two historians said, that everything you say is the truth and everything I say is wrong. Well to start off with if someone wants to get an idea of how many modern jewish historians there are including the two Higgly has quoted you can go to; www.reference.com/browse/wiki/List_of_Jewish_historians. You will see there are more then these two historians out there and if you try make an effort to read more then just anti-Israeli slanted historians you can come across with different information, assumptions and facts. Here are some jewish historian sites where the writers offer differing views on the History of Israel; www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/lipstadt.html - yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300072163 www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6953.html www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/ruderman.htm - www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/ruderman.htm - mj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/2/231.pdf You will see very quickly that all Higgly has done is quote some historians to his liking. As I have tried to explain to Higgly there is no right and wrong in history just as there is no right and wrong in the Palestine conflict. There are versions of the same events and of course different views as to legal issues and as to what happened. Higgly continues to infer he knows the truth and there is but one version of the truth. This is precisely why I took the time to respond to the cut and paste and information he took out of context and filled in the gaps. Everything I rebutted with comes from; www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ http://www.albany.edu/history/middle-east/israel.htm www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_timeline.htm - . I encourage anyone to take what I said, take what Higgly said, and compare for yourselves which information is more accurate and provides the most information as opposed to only one side of it. "As for the rest of your first post, the key phrase is "a homeland for the Jews in Palestine". Neither the Balfour declaration nor any decision by the League of nations made any statements about turning all of Palestine into a homeland for the Jews. This was strictly a Zionist interpretation and not one that was shared by anyone else - viz. both the British and the UN proposals for partition." Again Higgly the above comment is false and I refer to the contents of the leage of Nations Palestine mandate that can be found in its entirety at http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/1922_MANDATE/1922_mandate.asp, but I have reprinted the relevant articles to show why what Higgly said is just not true; Article 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. |Back to top | Article 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power. Article 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. | Higgly trying to revise history is one thing, trying to deny cerain things do not exist is another. If you want be to treat you respectfully, then please don't make such statements because you are either deliberately fabricating falsehoods or are talking off the top of your head. Either way please take the time to read about what it is you are making pronoucements about to make sure what you are saying is accurate. You didn't present an opinion, you presented something that is not true as if it was a fact. "The theme that comes through again and again in these books is that the Zionists knew what they were doing was unfair to the Arabs of Palestine, that the Arabs would resist, and that the only way they could achieve their aims was by constructing an 'Iron Wall of military might'. " That Higgly is precisely the point. You are reading essays that present a particular version of what happened and you are jumping to the conclusion that because this version has been written it is the only one that should be accepted. There are of course an equal number of books that would also indicate Zionists were sympathetic to Arabs and wanted to live in peace with them but found themselves rejected and the target of violence and war and that there was of course another way to deal with jews in Israel other then with violence and war. The web sites I listed above are just a few examples. Most of the historians you will find on the list unlike Higgly believe that there are two sides to the Palestine-Israel conflict and of course if you have preconceived political biases as to who is right and who is wrong, it will reflect in the way you restate history in books-a point Higgly keeps missing. "Although more moderate Jews were willing to accept a shared state, the Zionists constantly pushed for one which would be exclusively Jewish or at least controlled by Jews and which would require a priori the expulsion of Arabs from their homelands." Higgly the above generalization reflects your personal subjective opinion and has no more validity then if I wrote; " although moderate Muslims are willing to recognize an Israeli state, Muslim nationalists constantly push for a country that will be exclusively Muslim.... Most importantly Higgly you let it slip again. Instead of talking about Israelis, you use the word JEWS. Ooopsy. Slipped again did we? And just for the record Higgly its dangerous generalizing what you think moderate Jews and Israelis think. Most of us Jews and Israelis will tell you there is an expression, 2 Jews, thousands of opinions. Please don't think Higgly for one second you think you can speak on behalf of Jews and Israelis and conveniently lump their opinions into neat categories. It is absurd as trying to do the same with the Arab peoples. "While discussing this actively amongst themselves, the Zionists hid their intentions from the Arabs, even negotiating agreements saying that their plans would have no negative effect on them (such as Chaim Weitzmann's agreement with Feisal). It was only when the Arabs finally realized what was coming, did they start to react violently against it." This again Higgly is another one of your subjective opinions that does not reflect what actually happened. As is the case in any conflict, both sides were not able to enter into agreements. Jews were very open and blatant about their desire to want a homeland. It was never hidden and to suggest it was is absurd...just as absurd as it would be to say Arabs hid their contempt for the concept of a Jewish homeland. Now Higgly I did take the time to carefully fill in the gaps you missed in my responses. if you want to turn this into yet another Jerry Falwell type exercise of you having a monopoly on what happened, I can only laugh and continue to counter what you say, when it is absurd or not true or misleading. Its fun!

"Historical records show that the majority of Palestinian Arabs were deliberately expelled by Jewish fighters. " Of course the above is incorrect. In fact 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left without ever seeing any Israeli soldiers for the simple reason that a lovely gentleman by the name of Dr. Hussein planted a rumour that Jews (Zionists) had massacered Palestinians causing a mass exodus long before 1948 and he did so delibereately on behalf of the Arab League. What is also a fact is the Arab League on loud-speakers, in speeches, in newspapers, and on its radio, told Arabs to leave stating the war would be quick and they could return once the Jews were removed. So to try revise what happened and make it sound like Jews stood there and said leave is absolute b.s. More to the point according to the UN, yes 711,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced. How about the 900,000 Jews that after 1948 were thrown out of all the Muslim countries of the Middle East and had their property seized not to mention the countless of other Jews not counted in this 900,000 because they had already been killed? See in the revisionist history essays, we simply ignore that of those 900,000 displaced Jews, 600,000 of them resettled in Israel while 300,000 resettled in Europe and North America. We simply forget that in fact 200,000 more Jews were displaced then Palestinians because if you buy into the myth that Palestinians are victims and Jews are the opressors you have to conveniently skip over such facts otherwise it would make no sense and you would come to the conclusion as do most rational people that there was no bad vs. good guy in Israel as Higgly and his pasted essays would suggest-but there were two sets of people caught up in historic events that displaced them both. So let us once and for all deal directly with this notion head on that Israel displaced Palestine. You want to talk myths-then let us talk myths. Palestine never existed as a nation. Anyone who knows anything about Middle East Hisory knows that. The name Palestine is a geographic term. Here is the part of history Higgly and the revisionists like to skip over; The notion of Arabs wanting a seperate Palestinian nation is for Western consumption. That is what they tell the West because that is of course what people like Higgly want to here. But if you live in the Middle East, if you read Arab newspapers, listen to their t.v. and radio, read their literature and speeches you would know when Muslims talk to each other about Palestine it has a different context. Here is what Adbdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader said about Palestine when speeking to the Peel Commission in 1937; " There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." Or here is what the representative of the Arab League said to the United Nations in his statement in May 1947; "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria... ...politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." Or here is what Ahmed Shuqeiri, the Chairman of the PLO to the UN Security Council said; "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." In the real Muslim world, borders are an absurdity. Muslims do not seperate state from religion. The idea of borders was imposed after World War One by the British and French carving the Middle East into little colonies they could control. Before then Palestine was an empty set of swamps and bogs, and desolate and simply the route between Cairo and Damascus. What we do know is the Turks ruled Palestine for four hundred years and the only interuption in their rule was from 1832-1840 when Muhammet Ali, an Egptian conquered Palestine, Syria and parts of Asia Minor. The Ottomans with both British and Russian military help then retook control of what you call Palestine. It is an historic fact that the Ottomans did not rule Palestine as one country or nation because they cut up the land into villayets (districts) whose boundaries constantly changed. In fact it was after the original Ottoman conquest in 1517, of what you call Palestine which cut it into four districts and then incorporated them under the province of Damascus and ruled them from Istanbul. At the beginning of the Ottoman era, it was estimated 1,000 Jewish families lived in the country. By the mid-16th century, the population of Jews rose to 10,000. As the Ottoman Empire eroded the geographic area of Palestine was neglected and forgotten. This is why by the end of the 18th century, the majority of the land was owned by absentee landlords and who then rented it out to poor tenant farmers. During this time period The forests of Galilee and the Carmel mountain range were destroyed and what was farm land turned into swamp and desert. It wasn't until the 19th century suddenly Britain and France became interested because of the opening of the Suez Canal for trade and as more and more Jews sought refuge from persecution in Europe or from dhimmitude in the rest of the Middle East, the Jewish population began to grow, and this is why by 1906, the majority of the population in Jerusalem was Jewish not Muslim. Now what revisionists like to do is try poortray a victim, Palestinian Arabs, supported by benevolent Arab countries trying to protect them from unreasonable Jews trying to steal their land, but it is a myth. If the Arab League was as benevolent as it is portrayed ask yourself, why did they never resettle Palestinians in other countries? Why was Arafat expelled from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia? More to the point do you think Syria, Jordan and Egypt even sympathize with Palestinians? Well let us go back to what Palestinians think of Palestine; the former military commander of the PLO as well as member of the PLO Executive Council, Zuhair Muhsin made this statement in the early 1970's: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity....yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel." You see in the Middle East, Palestine is a code word for ridding the Middle East of Jews, but after that no one stops to think what it would really mean after that other then they want to swallow up the Palestinians and simply control the former Israel. This is why for example the former Syrian President, Hafez Assad said; "Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people." and he also stated; "Palestine is a principal part of Southern Syria, and we consider that it is our right and duty to insist that it be a liberated partner of our Arab homeland and of Syria." This why there was a major civil war in Jordan in 1967 called the Black Sabbath uprising in which Palestinians the majority of the population in Jordan were prevented from taking control and deposing King Hussein. Jordan did not want Palestinians in its country and it expelled them. Syria? Syria expelled Arafat and the PLO and Assad and Arafat openly feuded precisely because Syria felt Israel should be part of its country along with Lebanon and to this day feels that way. Lebanon? Lebanon expelled Arafat as well because the civil war between shiite and sunni Muslims and between those two and Christians and Druze became bloody and the PLO tried to seize control of the country. Tunisia? Same thing. The Arab world is not opening its arms welcoming Palestinians as brothers? Palestinian leaders and Palestinians are considered second class citizens in the Arab world and are seen as Israel's problem. Israel is a convenient scapegoat because the Arab League then does not have to examine its legal role in encouraging Palestinians to leave and telling them they could return soon, or its role in deliberately expelling 900,000 Jews from Muslim countries making it impossible for Israel to resettle Palestinians when it was faced with 600,000 displaced Jews. This is the fallacy. People like Higgly want yout o believe evil Zionists kicked out 711,000 Palestinians but they want you to suspend any reference to the 600,000 Jews who fled to Israel after 1948. What Higgly would also have you ignore is the fact that after World War Two the Grand Mufti of Jerusalemwho had been a frequent guest of Hitler, as was the tradition since the 1930's, called on all MUslims to embrace Nazi anti-semitism, and see the waqr against Israel as not just a war against ISrael but of all Jews everywhere. This is why to this day, the trendy leftists and Higgly will say, this is not about Jews its about zionism only, Palestinians want to live peacefully with Jews in a secular state, but forget that there is no secular state in the Middle East because Sharia law and dhimmitude does not permit Jews to live as equal citizens or own land without paying a special tax and remaining second class. It also forgets that on every t.v. and radio station and in every newspaper, Muslims are taught that their war is not just with Israel but Jews everywhere and that the holocaust did not happen and Hitler was a great guy. Mohamed Abbas the supposed moderate leader of the PLO wrote his thesis on why the holocaust never happened. Iran just ran a symposium inviting scholars from all over the world to visit and present essays on why the holocaust didn't happen and ran a cartoon contest seeing who could depict the most insulting charactiture of a Jew. On Jordanian t.v. in a supposedly moderate Muslim nation, are open discussions by Muslim clerics as to why Jews are infidel and how the coming war will wipe them all out. Children's t.v. shows depict Jews as raping Muslim women, making blood from Muslim children for Matzah at passover, etc. Egyptian t.v. is full of movies and debates depicting Jews as vermin. On and on it goes. Hamas is not talking about a secular state. Its charter like Hezbollah's calls on a holy war against Jews world-wide. Yah for people like Higgly who have a preconceived notion that Jews are bad, he will cut and paste and find essays to suit his preconceived notion that Jews are not special and are unreasonable, etc. The fact is however quite simple. Right or wrong 3,500 years of persecution and slaughter of Jews leading to the holocaust created a fait accompli as to the fate of Jews. So did throwing out 900,000 Jews from the rest of the Middle East and so does the fact that in Sharia law and the system of dhimmitude or Muslim apartheid, non Muslims can't live in the Muslim world without persecution and intolerance. This talk of a secular state in an area of the world where Muslims kill each other daily is a laugh. The only thing that has prevented the Muslim world from erupting in a massive internal civil war destroying itself is the one thing they can all agree on, ridding the Middle East of Jews. When Iran's economy collapses, of course its leader will make all kinds of anti-Zionist statements. First thing you do when your country is corupt and totalitarian and its economhy collapses is to pull the Jewish scapegoating out of the hat to distract. The Muslim world has embraced Nazism. It was not an accident that so many Nazis settled in Damascus post World War Two and created many of the splinter groups that today call for the destruction of Israel. So when Higgly tries to paint the Arab world as a bunch of heroes helping a victimized people remember one thing, Palestinians have victimized themselves by choosing violence and the same Arab countries that tell the West they care about Palestinians secretly exchange intelligence with Israel as to Hamaz and Hezbollah and fear Arab nationalism as much if not more then the Israelis. If you think Syria openly is at war with the Muslim Brotherhood and so is Egypt. Saudi Arabia could topple at any time. Jordan is kept together thanks to MI-6 and Israeli help in keeping nationalists in the country under watch. Lebanon has now turned to France in a desperate attempt to remove itself from the clutches of Hezbollah and Syria. Iraq is condemned to being split in 3 abd becoming a series of fragmented mini states. Afghanistan is all about getting back to Sharia law despite our naive efforts to turn it into a democracy. Iran? Iran is typical of what Hezbollah and Hamas want, theocratic states that do not allow freedom of speech. So let us stop pretending this is good v.s. bad. This has become Jews in Israel who can go no where v.s. Palestinians who are being used as pawns by Hamas, Hezbollah and the Arab League. It is about the US desperately trying to counter extreme militancy with an Israeli presence while at the same time propping up corupt oil regimes. Its about France openly funding terrorist organizations thinking it will placate their Muslims back home and get them influence over oil. Its about Britain going to Libya and worshipping Ghaddafi's feet so he would turn the oil pipe-line back on. Its about Algeria killing 100,000 of its fellow citizens in a civil war. It is about Syria shooting 10,000 civilians because Muslim Brotherhood members were in the villages with these civilians and while Syria loves to state how evil Israel is, unlike Israel which has its soldiers die going door to door, does not worry about such things. It is not black and white.

" Since 1948 a number of myths have been promulgated by Israel and by its supporters. Many of these articles of 'mythinformation' (my word) form a core part of Israeli propoganda and are still being taught in Israeli schools and quoted by important members of the Canadian press. The Myths. 1) During the 1948 war, the objective of the Arabs was to destroy Israel and, although the Arab armies greatly outnumbered the Jewish fighters, Israel prevailed in a desperate and heroic David and Goliath struggle through pluck, determination and guile. 2) Immediately before and during the war, approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled Palestine because the Arab attackers told them to leave or be slaughtered. They became refugees living in the adjacent countries. 3) Following the war, Israel made every effort to negotiate a peace but the Arabs refused to talk and were completely intransigent." All of the above quote pasted by Higgly is an example of going to an essay by someone who has made the supposition that Israel should not exist and now is working backwords, revising historic facts to suit their supposition. The above wording is necessarily subjective and opinions not based on historic fact but someone's personal political views coloured by his supposition Israel should not exist. So I will merely respond to it by saying, Higgly you have to do better then quote someone's opinions. Try look at history and what actually happened. If you do you probably will see there is no right and wrong, just versions of the same event depending on who is telling the story. In your approach you actually believe one side knows the truth and the other does not. I would suggest your version is just that, an abnreviated, selective version of what actually happened and I will carefully explain why. "The Facts. 1) During the 1948 war, the objective of the Arabs was to destroy Israel and, although the Arab armies greatly outnumbered the Jewish fighters, Israel prevailed in a heroic and desperate David and Goliath struggle through pluck, determination and guile. King Abdullah of Jordan, rather than wanting to destroy Israel, sought only to shore up his claim to the Arab parts of Palestine asssigned by the British as the Jordanian Protectorate - mostly the West Bank. Prior to the war he negotiated an agreement with Israeli emissary Golda Meir in which he agreed to respect Israel's borders as laid out in the UN partition agreement and he kept his word. Jordanian forces never attempted to cross the borders laid out in the partition resolution. Israel, on the other hand, attacked areas under Jordan's protectorate and tried to take land from Abdullah. At the end of the war, Israel held nearly twice as much land as had been granted it under the partition agreement, but was prevented from taking key strategic sites in the Jordanian Protectorate by an effective Jordanian defense. History also shows that Jewish fighters outnumbered the Arabs significantly throughout the war. At the start in May of 1948, there were 35,000 Jewish fighters against 25,000 Arab fighters. By the end of the year, Israel had 96,000 active fighters. Although the Arabs had increased their forces throughout, they never came close to matching the numerical strength of the Israeli forces. In addition, during this time. Israel was able to substantioally increase its armament by shipments from Czechoslovakia. " The above Higgly is a classic example of someone trying to revise what historically happened and re-mold it to fit their personal political views. To start with history has not shown anything new. What is obvious Higgly and you can try re-write it or deny it, is that the Arab League of Nations and countries that did attack Israel were clearly agreed on one thing-that there should be no country for Jews called Israel under any circumstance and that the intent of their war was to prevent Jews from having a country. So to suggest they had other interests is silly. Of course they did but they were all united in the common agreement that Israel should not exist. No one Higgly would be silly enough to suggest Muslims all think the same and had the same interests other then one thing-they agreed a Jewish state should not and could not exist. The comments you have quoted about King Abdullah are highly selective and of course reflect an opinion that makes no sense. What Higgly and the essay he has pasted out of context selectively forget is as folows; During the Third phase of the War of Independence from May 14 1948 to June 11, 1948, As well as being attacked by 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,000 Transjordanian troops invaded the Corpus Separatum region of Israel/Palestine which consisted of Jerusalem and its surrounding area. The Trans-Jordanians were also supported by volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. What Higgly also conveniently skips over is that in fact a telegram was sent from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on the 15th of May 1948, whereby the Arab League stated they rejected the idea of having Muslim and Jewish countries in Palestine (in fact the 23% of Palestine that remained since Britain alreay awarded 77% of Palestine to TransJordan). The Arab League stated they would create a "United State of Palestine" instead of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. The Arab League said that since the Arab majority was not Jewish, they would not allow a Jewisg state under any circusmatnce and that they all had the mandate including Transjordan to intervene to protect Arab lives and property. That is there in their speech. So to pretend Transjordan was not part of this is silly. In fact along with Israel, botht he US and the Soviets called the Arab League states' entry into Palestine wasillegal aggression and to be specific the UN secretary general Trygve Lie described it and I quote; "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [second World] War." TransJordanian in fact shelled Jerusalem in 1948. It is a fact that the heaviest fighting occured in Jerusalem and on or about the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road, between Transjordan's Arab Legion and the Israeli forces. In fact King Abdullah ordered General John Glubb Pasha, the commander of the Transjordanian Arab Legion, to enter Jerusalem on May 17, 1948 and history records heavy house-to-house fighting between May 17 and 28. The Arab Legion succeeded in expelling Israeli forces from the Arab quarters of Jerusalem as well as the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. In fact all Jewish inhabitants of the Old City were expelled by the Jordanians. Finally the comments that Israel held twice as much land as was proposed to it in the Befour declaration of course ignores the fact that 77% of Palestine was already illegally handed over to Muslims in Transjordan. In fact the 1949 to 1967 border of Israel did not include the West Bank which Jordan seized illegally and was never mandated to them. And no one denies the fact that Israel's initial army of 20,000 frew to 108,000 by the end of the war. Jews came from all over the world to make a stand and so did many non Jews who felt Israel was an under-dog and being treated unfairly. Now I will respond to the rest in another post as I need to pee and there is so much misleading info there is a limit to how much I can counter at one time.

Well Higgly thanks for the cut and pastes out of context. Now I will dissect what you say word for word to show people how you distort information to fit it into your pre-supposition and simplistic formula that Palestine good, Israel bad, and your not so disguised contempt for Judaism and things Jewish. But I know Higgly you are simply stating facts. "In 1947 the UN partitioned British Mandate Palestine into Arab and Jewish areas. In 1948 Israel declared itself a state." Nice Higgly except things did not just suddenly begin because you want it to, in 1947. In fact Higgly why not go back to 1920 when Christians in the Middle East were awarded Lebanon and Muslims were awarded Iraq and Syria by the same colonialists, the British and French who divided the area into artificial borders in the first place. As part of their dividing the Middle East into little boxes, you also forgot to mention Syria and Lebanon were turned into French colonies, and Iraq was turned into a convenient British colony. What you also forget of course, is that in 1920 the League of Nations, the precursor to the UN, first coined the phrase Palestinian mandate in specific reference for finding Jews a homeland in the Middle East as the final component to the Christian, Muslim, Jewish puzzle. What you also forget is that in 1920, the British offered to pursue that mandate and find the Jews a homeland, then less then two years later, deliberately broke that mandate and took 77% of Palestine, and turned it into TransJordan and awarded it to the Muslims. What Higgly also conveniently has skipped over is as follows; The Muslim world rejected the notion of Jews gettting homeland as suggested by the League of Nations in 1920 and in April 1920, when the British carved out "Palestine: Moslems reacted in protest immediately. It is an historic fact that Muslims rejected the delineation of Palestine in 1920 and in fact that Muslims west of Jordan retained their allegiance to the great-great-uncle of Jordan's King Abdullah II who was then ruling in Damscus. At that time they identified themselves as Southern Syrians. In early July of 1920, the French then overthrew King Abdullah and then and only as a direct result of this French action, did Muslims then come up with a new notion to establish another Muslim state Higgly likes to call Palestine. I will disect the rest of Higgly's simplistic and selective pastes in the next reply.

I think Higgly wants to counter my last efforts that debated what he said but received no responses. At least he has tried this time to find something other then his personal opinions to back up his views. Its a start.

We had this same sort of stupid, smirking post during the Boxing Day shooting threads. The point from the Left seems to be that if they post one or two crimes posted by Whites, well then, anyone talking about crime commited by other races or groups is clearly countered! Of course there is crime by Whites. Eighty five percent of the population is White. No one has ever suggested there is not crime by Whites. The suggestion is that a vastly disproportionate amount of crime is commited by non-whites. Posting one or two White crimes to refute that is ludicrous. There were four very violent crimes commited in Ottawa over the last ten days involving four deaths. All involved ethnics. This is not unusual. Most murders - other than famiily related - commited in Toronto are by non-Whites. Most street crime is by non-whites. And most complaints about Muslims are about religiously inspired violence, not general crime. Although, in the case cited above, statistics appear to be showing that Muslim immigrants in some nordic countries are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of crime, especially sex crimes against women. By some statistics the majority of rapists are Muslims. Of course Argus you are dead on and spefically the point that this foolish poster is trying to compare general crime and probably acts inspired by what now appears to be a mentally ill man with sexual problems with another completely different issue and that is religious inspired terrorism or violence. Nothing this man did was inspired by Christian clerics or Zionist Rabbiahs or Wide-eyed Buddist Monks or Crazed Hindu priests, The comparison is deliberately odious and it shows an appalling amount of ignorance. This crime was in fact typical of a crime that has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The criminal is almost always a male, has unresolved sexual conflicts, feels alienated and hates himself, never feels he will be accepted by main stream society and has anger towards women who he blames for his feelings of inadequacy. There is a reason women are targeted out and killed and there is a reason it is often young women in the prime of their life. This is what happens when men do not learn to channel their anger and learn respect and boundaries during their early years. To try turn this into a defence or political exercise to suggest people can not criticize the Muslim religion for being violent is pathetic and there was nothing witty or funny about it. Intelligent people know you can criticize a religion or people acting in the name of a religion without hating Muslims as people. Then again these trendy leftists are so convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong that they act like fools trying to show us how superior to us they are when they disagree with us. I am not as classic conservative like you Argus, I am probably have many more Liberal tendencies, but I appreciate sometimes you are susinct and dead on. Your comments calmed me down. As for those relatives and the community what can any of us do but either pray for them of think positive things for them. Its disgusting like Dawson College and all the others. What a society we live in when we turn on our children and act like depraved psychoes and then try use such a tragedy to make arguements about something totally unrelated. It shows a remarkable lack of spirituality or undestanding of what violent death is and what causes it - and if anything we have to understand how this was in fact an act of sexual violence against young women as was the case with Dawson College and the other horrible shooting. Rather then try get smug about it, let us define it for what it is, violence against women.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../Entertainment/ Apparently, in some parts of the world (south of here) the Blue Man Group is considered high avant garde art. In Toronto, they were considered boring and idiotic..... I think you are reaching and creating a non existent issue as toToronto's perceived tastes. What happened was that this outfit did not want to use union employees and so the school unions boytcotted it meaning its major source of revenue, school trips was cut off. In regards to Torontonians having different tastes then everyone else, if you want to get all snooty annd think so be my guest but marketing study after marketing study shows we are indistinguishable in consuming habits then any other North American city. The only unique thing in Toronto is that we apparently had a large ration of our population going out to movies in cinemas (this has changed due to dvds and pay tv obviously) and that we have the most diversified amount of ethnic groups and languages spoken in North America but that does not seem to make us any better then anyone else. If you want to get snooty, go to Montreal for a weekend, learn what a real bagel and real smoked meat is, then come back and we can talk. True culture would mean appreciating the differene between a puck and a bagel and real smoked meat from dyed pink synthetic meat products. For a city that has supported a losing hockey team for 40 years but still flocks out every year to worship this big Swedish puff pastry on skates, its not a city I would call high-brow. This is HOG Town.

Let me give a hint to the Israel Bad Palestine good lobbyists at this forum. If Iran gets to the position where it can use a nuclear bomb I think some of those infidel Zionist colonialist expanionist victimizing unfair Israeli military types might be tempted to engage in a pre-emptive strike. Oh call it a wild hunch. ( and don't forget given I am a Hebrew, I am part of the world wide conspiracy that controls American foreign policy, controls the media, Hollywood and the world banks framed Mel Gibson, and am actively engaged in a one world government conspiracy with Masons, aliens from outer-space (Dracos) and the CIA as well as Condaleeza Rice who we have mind controlled)

Yegads Sharkman you waded into OJ with this topic? You tread in volatile waters. I think your comments as to OJ generalize a tad bit. Not all black people felt OJ was innocent or a victim of society nor did all black people feel Christoper D. the D.A. that was up against him was an Uncle Tom. I think you generalize and understimate Black America. What should not suprise you though is that in L.A., with rampant racism manifested by the police against black citizens, it wouldn't take a genius to understand, blacks have a problem trusting the L.A. police. If you were black living in L.A. you would probably have a different perspective as to the justice system then if you were white. It stands to reason. The OJ trial was a classic case of idiocy in the sense that the jury picked had no university education, were lower class, black, female, all categories most likely to see OJ as a son of theirs. More important the dna evidence presented to them could not be understood. It went over their head. So a bit of it was of course the dna evidence not being understood, another part was the profile of the jurt picked, and the most important part was the DA's office did not screen their star witness and once dirt came out on him being a racist the trial was over. Race relations is a powder keg in the US inner cities and do say you don't understand why blacks don't like or trust police or the justice system is kind of well how shall we say this, take it from another caucasian-very albino like of you. That said today's Republican Party has always attracted more rural,white voters then the democrats simply because the democratic party has traditionally been the party of the trade unions and more blacks in the US are in trade unions or blue collar jobs then in the elite upper classes or financial classes or farming operations where a lot of the Republican vote comes from. Traditionally only Cubans have been the strong minority supporters of the Republicans. Doesn't take a genius to figure out Condaleeza Rice is probably one of the first blacks Bush has ever invited to dinner and heaveb forbid as the press has suggested might have even had an affair with her.

I think the following will be blamed whether there is a link or not; 1-federal government 2-provincial government 3-municipal government 4-trade unions 5-politicians on all 3 levels 6-people for driving cars 7-the greenhouse effect and acid rain 8-Mike Robiero and that is why he was traded from the Habs yesterday

The earlier iteration of that post, which I saw when it was posted, shows that you clearly understood it. I give you a bit more credit. Hey jbg I figured out your initials, jewish bad guy!

Oh and since Higgly feels I am assaulting France (that's a good one viva La France) lets really do discuss France foreign policy; here are some exerpts from Olivier Guitta, a French scholar, written in the Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2005, Volume X11, no.4, which can be found at www.meforum.orh/article/772. And no Mr. Guitta is not a Zionist, Jewish or pro Israeli. "The French approach to the Middle East changed after the Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day war. President Charles de Gaulle began to espouse the decidedly pro-Arab policy that continues to the present. According to the news magazine Le Point, de Gaulle explained, "The Arabs have for themselves their numbers, space, and time."[13] His was a Machiavellian calculation. He pursued what he saw as a long-term strategy: sacrificing good ties with Israel in order to win the good will of the more populous and oil-rich Arab world. Subsequent French leaders, both from the Left and the Right, adopted his policy. As early as 1974, for example, the conservative president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing established relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), despite its involvement in terrorism, including the murder of Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972 and the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Sudan in March 1973.[14] The secretary general of the Quai d'Orsay helped set up the PLO office in Paris.[15] The French approach to anti-Western figures and revolutionaries extended to provision of safe-haven to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the most prominent opponent to the Iranian regime of the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah. Khomeini used his time in France to engage the Western media and broadcast calls for revolution. The French approach backfired this time, however, for after reaching power, Khomeini sponsored terrorism on French soil—for example the wave of bombings in Paris in 1986, which killed eleven and wounded 275 and the 1991 assassination of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last premier under the shah.[16]" and; "The Chirac administration's support for the Assad regime is not only limited to public gestures. The French government has reportedly sold weapons systems such as self-propelled howitzers equipped with night vision gear to Syria.[67] As in the case of Iraq, there are lingering questions of Syrian payments to French politicians. Many French politicians join associations and charitable boards both for financial and political gain. The board of the L'Association d'Amitié France-Syrie (France-Syria Friendship Association) boasts among its members former prime minister Raymond Barre, former secretary of state Claude Cheysson, and 2007 presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy.[68] So why did Paris join with Washington on September 2, 2004, to cosponsor U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops occupying Lebanon and the disarmament of militias? The left-of-center daily Libération suggested the temporary unity was because the murder of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri forced Chirac temporarily to choose between Arab friends.[69] Hariri described Chirac as "my best pal" shortly before his death.[70] Some French papers have reported that the Lebanese billionaire contributed to Chirac's 2002 reelection campaign.[71] Chirac rewarded his friend by helping the Lebanese government avert bankruptcy. For example, in November 2002, he put together the Paris II conference, in which European leaders, Saudi officials, and representatives from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank worked to extend credit to Lebanon. Chirac helped the Lebanese government win $4.4 billion of international credits.[72] But the February 14, 2005 assassination of Hariri forced the French hand. According to one French diplomat, "Before, all we did for Syria was because of Hariri; now everything we do against Syria is because of Hariri, again."[73] Now that the Syrian troop withdrawal is complete, Chirac may again embrace the Syrian president. Quay d'Orsay has not fully accepted U.S. concerns regarding Syrian support for Lebanese Hezbollah, for example. Chirac has long embraced Hezbollah. Former U.S. senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Fla.), relates how, upon arriving in Damascus in July 2002, he saw an Iranian cargo plane on the tarmac. He asked a U.S. diplomat what it might be carrying. The embassy aide replied, "Probably arms and ammunition, other military equipment for Hezbollah. This is the primary point of delivery."[74] Such matter-of-fact concerns regarding Hezbollah's commitment to violence did not factor in Chirac's decision to embrace the group. Prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group; it still has the distinction of having killed more Frenchmen than any other terrorist group outside of the Algerian war for independence because of its bombing of the French marine barracks in Beirut and subsequent kidnapping of sixteen French citizens. Nevertheless, in October 2002, Chirac invited Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah secretary general, to attend the Francophone summit in Beirut. Their meeting bestowed legitimacy upon the group, whose raison d'être disappeared upon the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon two years before. The French government has continued to resist calls not only from Washington and Jerusalem but also from some within Europe to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization,[75] preferring instead to categorize the group as a "social" organization.[76] The one concession the French government has made to other Western governments has been to ban Hezbollah's Al-Manar satellite channel in December 2004.[77] The move came under tremendous pressure from French politicians and public alike, outraged at the station's flouting of French laws banning anti-Semitism. Chirac's consistent support for Hezbollah has won him the group's favor. In April 2005, Nasrallah published a commentary in the Beirut daily As-Safir in which he welcomed a French role in Lebanese reconciliation and declared that the "Lebanese do not like to see France held hostage to the savage and aggressive American hegemony."[78] " De Gaulle made it crystal clear when France decided to become pro-Arab in 1967, that he felt France should side with the more populous side and the side with the oil. Those are his words in speeches you can find on the internet. France has openly funded and aided Syria, Iraq, and Iran and it positioned itself to try build pipelines in all these countries and Afghanistan. But Higgly please, move to France and embrace the Chirac doctrine. You certainly won't be sick and tired there. No one in France supports Israel. You will feel right at home there. You can live with the Muslim French citizens who feel they are loved and embraced by the same French government. No hippocracy there. No opportunism there. Its all good. France Good. Israel bad.

Here is an exerpt from the Egyptian scholar Bat Ye'or on dhimmitude. I enclose this so we can deal with issues other then Higgly's personal feelings; (full text can be found at http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm) Characteristics of dhimmitude The basic element of dhimmitude is a land expropriation through a pact: 'land for peace'. The vanquished populations of territories taken during a millennium of jihad were ‘protected’, providing they recognized the Islamic ownership of their lands, which had now become dar al-Islam, and that they submitted to Islamic authority. The vanquished peoples are granted security for their life and possessions by the Muslim authority, as well as a relative self‑autonomous administration under their religious leaders, and permission to worship according to the modalities of the treaties. This concept of 'toleration' is linked to a number of discriminatory obligations in the economic, religious and social fields. There are different opinions among the jurists concerning which transgres­sion of these obligations can be considered as breaking the protection pact (dhimma), and what sanctions should be applied. The first 'right' is the right to life, which was conceded on payment of the jizya (Koran 9:29), a poll-tax paid with humiliation by the dhimmi.. The refusal to pay the jizya is considered by all jurists as a rupture of the dhimma, which automatically restores to the umma its initial rights of war ‑ to kill and to dispossess the dhimmi, or to expel him, because he has therefore returned to his former status of being an unsubjected infidel. Hence Abu Yusuf wrote in his book on the kharaj (land tax) that it was not allowed for the governor to exempt any Jew, Christian, or other dhimmis from the jizya: “and no one can obtain a partial reduction. It is illegal for one to be exempted and another not, for their lives and belongings are spared only because of payment of the poll tax." 9 Protection is abolished if the dhimmis rebel against Islamic law, give allegiance to a non‑Muslim power, refuse to pay the jizya, entice a Muslim from his faith, harm a Muslim or his property, or commit blasphemy. The moment the pact of protection is abolished the jihad resumes, which means that the lives of the dhimmis and their property are forfeited. Today, one finds Islamists in Upper Egypt who kill and pillage Copts, because they argue that these dhimmis have forfeited their 'protection' as they no longer pay the jizya. The Baha'i religion is not protected even today in Iran. In 1994 two Muslims kidnapped and killed a Baha'i. The Islamic court held that as the Baha'is were "unprotected infidels... the issue of retribution is null and void". 10 This means that an infidel has no human rights, unless he is protected by Islamic law. In the context of its time, the protection system presented both positive and negative aspects. It provided security and a measure of religious autonomy, but in a legal context of discrimination. These rules, mostly estab­lished from the eighth to ninth centuries by the founders of the four schools of Islamic law, set the pattern of the Muslim community's social behavior toward dhimmis." Dhimmitude is deeply entrenched in the culture, religion, mentality of all Muslims. So when people who have no clue about the Muslim world talk about democratic secular states what they do not understand is the Muslim world has a wide spread form of apartheid and discrimination completely anti-thetical to our notions of democracy and land rights. So this is not a matter of Higgly being upset with a world wide bias in favour of Israel. It is in fact about a system of discriminatory laws based on Sharia law. If you want to see what happens when you are not Muslim under this system of law please got to; http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm I deliberately provide examples of non Muslims who are not Jewish so I won't upset Higgly any further with my pro kosher tendencies.

First of all Rue, you are a shotgun. Your statements are not focussed. One could waste many many afternoons dealing with your mythinformation. Your excursions into the dhimmi laws are a case in point; and then there is your assault on the French... We have dealt with specific statements you have made. Many of them are unsubstantiated and not worth wasting our time on. Sounds like a lot of name calling to disguise the fact that you don't know how to counter what I have said. I also want you to point out what I have said about dhimmitude that is wrong or where I have as you state have committed an "assault on the French". Higgly stop with the name calling and debate what I have said.

Well you know Rue, I have been reading about this in the newspapers since I was knee high to a grasshopper. Governments have made decisions based on the Israeli version of events. People have died and lost their homes - many, many people. In a democratic country, we all have a right to our say, and that right is based on accurate information about what has happened on the ground. When I think that I have been lied to, and I think that my government is making decisions based on mythinformation, than it is my right and my duty, as a member of the democratic electorate, to speak out. If you have verifiable sources to refute me, Rue, I welcome you to the debate. If not, then stand aside for those who might. See the way it works Higgly is this. If you make clearly a subjective opinion statement that you have been lied to, but I have no idea who you claim lied to you or what you claim they presented to you is a lie, your remark that I must prove you wrong is silly. So for example, you make yet another subjective statement that "Governments have made decisions based on the Israeli version of evenbts." What does that mean? What governments? What policies? Are you referring to Libya's, Egypt's, Iran's, Syria's? Are you referring to the United Nations which has clearly been openly bias against Israel? Are you referring say to the Canadian government and Stephen Harper, who just yesterday at the Francophone summit had to go back and challenge the other nations into rewriting their statement about the latest Lebanese conflict because it made no mention of Israeli victims and Harper had to remind everyone to remain neutral? Are you referring to the European Union, France, Russia, China, the non aligned nations, the Arab League, Cuba, North Korea, who have all condemned Israel and come out openly bias against Israel? Just who do you refer to and what policies? See until you become clear and specific, you sound just like another person with a chip on their shoulder and hard on about anything that doesn't shit on Israel or Jews. Now you keep telling me to prove you wrong. If it is your subjective feeling it is not up to me to prove it wrong just point out to everyone else you are simply expressing subjective, unsunstantiated feelings based on preconceptions none of us can understand. What I have done in my responses is to avoid your personal subjective feelings and stick to historical facts and I again invite you to attack, chomp, destroy anything you think I have said that is wrong with something other then your feelings.

Muslim Israelis and Christian Israelis are allowed to join the Army and some have but unlike Jewish Israelis, they are allowed to exercise the option NOT to join. Israeli Jews must be in the army between the age of 18 and 65, unless they ask for a religious exemption which is what the ultra-orthodox do since these ultra-orthodox Jews do not believe Israel should exist yet. Here is the prolem. If you are a Muslim or Christian Israeli who is not in the Israeli reserve, its a major problem. Since everyone in the reserve is given a security check, the reseve status is really the way prospective employers decide whether to hire you or not. So if you are a Christian or Muslim Israeli who didn't go into the army, you don't have security clearance and that is a barrier to getting work. It is not that you are a Muslim Israeli or Christian Israeli, it is that you don't have the security clearance and unfortunately since Israel is in reality in a constant state of war against terror, that security clearance is the be-all end all when it comes to getting work. That is why Muslim Israelis and Christian Israelis often try move to other countries. Legally a Muslim Israeli or Christian Israeli has identifical rights to land ownership, schooling, medical care and the constitution and case law has entrenched this equality and enforced it in decisions. There have been Muslims who have joined the Israeli army including Muslims from Yugoslavia resettled in Israel as refugees from the civil war with Bosnia, Serbia and Albania. Now the information you quote on dhmittude is correct. So the point you see I am getting at is this-yes if you are a Christian or Jew in a Muslim country you can use land, but you do not have the same right to it as a Muslim and you pay a tax for it a Muslim would not. That is a huge difference. So its misleading to say Jews or Christians can own land in the Muslim world, unless you take the time to go the next step and understand what the conditions are placed on your land or business. As I also stated, in certain countries, such as Jordan, a Jew can not be a citizen of the country. In Iran, yes there are Jews, but many were tortured or abused after the Shah was thrown out. The Shah was accused of being a Zionist lacky, so all Jews after the Shah was thrown out, were automatically assumed to be Shah supporters and enemies of the state. Their life since that time has been one of persecution, second class citizenship, and open condemnation by the goevrnment and its numerous cleric councils. Iran has also openly killed and persecuted Bahaiis, Zorostreans and Christians. If you then bother to look at the laws of all Arab League Nations at this time, as well as Idonesia and Malaysia, you can see as Islamic religious concepts and the state have become blurred since there is no seperation, discriminatory laws have emerged making Jews and Christians second class citizens and not able to enjoy the same rights to land.

Why only half? Just turnout, or do only odd number memberships get to vote or something weird? Going to the Liberal website and downloading the ticker, will show the follow results as of 1:15AM MST (many drinks tonight so forgive any minor errors, the order will be right): Ignatieff 204 Delegates (28.9%) Dion 122 Delegates (17.3%) Rae 114 Delegates (16.1%) Kennedy 92 Delegates (13%) Brision 65 Delegates (9.2%) Dryden 48 Delegates (6.8%) Volpe 29 Delegates (4.1%) Hall Findlay 16 Delegates (2.3%) Undeclared 16 Delegates (2.3%) Does that mean we'll like see Brison, Dryden, Volpe and Findlay drop out shortly? Does this mean Iggy likely will win, or just win the first ballot? The supports of the other camps obviously would then transfer support to another candidate as they drop out. I guess that leaves a few questions for everyone: a-> Where do the semi-big name supporters go to after they quit... Brison, Volpe and maybe Kennedy? Iggy, or Rae (or maybe even Dion)? B-> Why are there undeclared delegates? What's the use... it seems they have little impact in the big scheme, but why the hell would you elect an undeclared? That's kind of pointless. I think Kennedy is rumoured to be as high as 102 and Rae higher as well. In any event Clearly Volpe will not drop out and Dryden said he would not. So I can't see Brison or Hall Findlay packing it in. Obviously this is really a race between Igg and Rae with Dion thinking he can squeeze through the middle and Kenendy thinking the same. It really is a 2 way race Igg v.s. Rae with Dion sort of there. Kennedy clearly is running to make himself known for the next time around. I personally think Kennedy is not qualified enough to ever be a Prime Minister. Running a food bank just does not cut it in this day and age where you need to have a lot more economic knowledge and certainly some sort of experiene running a large for profit corporation. Dion is just not the answer. His policies and reputation are just too closely attached to Chretiens since Chretiens brought him in. In reality he was not the lap puppy some think he is, but he's just too closely associated to Chretiens to ever be taken seriously. So who does that leave. Obviously Rae and Igg and at this point anyone not on the Igg band-wagon is rushing to the Rae band wagon in an effort to cover their pathetic greedy butts. If they elect Rae, they destroy the party and its a laugh and landslide for Harper who will just butcher this bumbling NDP loser. Rae's record in Ontario as an NDP laughing stock Premier can not be defended against and for the Liberals to take his candidacy seriously shows you just how pathetic the Liberals are. Igg can go one on one with Harper on foreign policy debates, but Harper I would predicy will be a better debater and expose him as an inexperienced dreamer academic with no understanding of how government works let alone the economy. I just don't think Canadians are in the mood for some academic these days. I think none of the candidates was the way to go. I would have gone with Frank McKenna but McKenna clearly did not want it thinking he could not beat Igg. The Liberals need a longer period in opposition to flush out their former Chretienites and Martinites and allow some grass roots reform and some people outside the party to have time to mature and think whether they want to get involved with it. If I am the Tories, I would think Igg would be the one I would least want elected but I am sure Harper isn't losing any sleep over it. I think a Harper v.s. Rae election would be an embarassement. There will be idiot Jack Layton claiming Rae is a socialist turn-coat and all Harper will have to do is laugh at the two twits and now and then say things like "economy" or "Afghanistan".

And this is news? Well, tell me Jerry, I haven't heard much in the way of sabre rattling from English minority groups in the Montreal area. Have they all thrown in the towel? I really don't blame them though when they get absolutely NO support from OUR federal government. If the feds have any integrity they would offer all English minorities who are unable to leave Quebec for financial reasons a job in the federal public service and pay all cost pertaining to setting up in another more civilized English province. I know in Ottawa many people are going to be in for one hell of a problem a few years down the road. We have tons of francophone's pouring into Ottawa every morning from Quebec taking all the jobs that 'artificial bilingualism' has created, courtesy of 'a la federal government'. Ottawa's English kids, many have no jobs or unskilled minimum wage jobs and are living with their parents who provide cheap or no charge room and board. But what's going to happen Gerry, when their parents pass on and they will be in the average age bracket of 35-50 and totally unemployable. What kind of unrectifiable social situation will this create? Who will pay for the high cost of welfare coupled with a possible high suicide rate? Society will say 'what has caused this horrible situation and who is responsible? To late though ...isn't it. Many Liberal supporters don't think of these things when they go out to vote ....with their wallet in mind. Well all I have to say is English society better think twice before voting Liberal if they don't want their children dying in the streets of English Canada. Couple of answers for that. The first is demography. English Montrealers are very old now. Their children left. A lot of them are in their 70's, 80's. They are not as active as they once were. Secondly, if you are an English Montrealer politically your options provincially are hopeless. You have a choice of what? The current Liberal Party in Quebec is actually the reincarnated Union National party merged with the Liberals. It doesn't cater to nor does it worry about its English minority which it takes for granted will vote for it. If you are English provincially you feel like a captive voter so apathy has kicked in plus the age. Thirdly, on the federal level, since Trudea retired, there has been no federal leader that has really understood or tapped into the fears or hopes of the English minority in Quebec. Certainly nopt Chretiens or Dion and certainly not Martin. I also thing Ignatieff's academic proposal of defining Quebec as a nation within a nation is the kind of academic elitist stuff that really makes English voters in the province say, we have a choice of Harper who clearly does not have English Quebec on his agenda or Iggy or heaven forbid Bob Rae. They are just disillusioned at this pt. Also a lot of federal contract money was sent into Quebec helping a good turn around in Montreal's economy so of course economically thinks are better so when the economy is stronger people also tend to be a bit more quiet. Charest may have his problems, but he has done a relatively good job with his province's economy and keeping his crazy unions under control.

Here is some of the latest vocabulary from News from Palestine which mixes politics and religion. This is the mentality that you tendy leftists think you understand. Good luck embracing it. And by the way when I hear you tell me the solution is a democratic secular state, I ask you one simple thing: uh hello read below. This is not talking about "Israelis" its talking about Christians and Jews. There is no differentiation between Israelis and Jews. Ask yourself why before you lecture me on Israel bad, Palestine good. Thus, the Hamas was right in refusing to recognise the Jewish state: in no way can this state become a tolerable neighbour, whether ruled by Labour of Peretz or by Kadima of Olmert, or even in extremely unlikely case of being ruled by Mr Avnery. This state has to be dismantled, like the Assassins' extraterritorial State that once controlled the Middle East. The Assassins drew their power from their ability and preparedness to assassinate the prominent leaders of Crusaders and Muslims, while leaving alive only weak rulers who did not dare to touch them. . . . The Jews do the same: sometimes, by sword, sometimes, by their money, sometimes, by their media, but no strong leader has emerged within their sphere of influence. . . . The Palestinians have no chance, unless we free our souls from Jewish control. And here we may turn to the second J-word, more mighty than the first: Jesus. The present subservience of the West began with a minor step. In 1960s, the Western churches removed from their liturgy a prayer "Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis", "Let us pray for perfidious Jews that our God and Lord will remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge the light of thy truth which is our Lord Jesus Christ and be delivered from their darkness." This was considered "antisemitic," though it is a far cry from the Jewish prayer "Shepokh Hamatha," "Lord, vent your fury upon goyim who do not know your name." But the Jews preserved their prayer of vengeance, while misled and subdued Christians dropped their prayer of mercy. Say this prayer today, say it in your church, dismiss a priest who dares it not, and tomorrow you will not writhe in face of Jewish displeasure, and Gaza – and your soul - will be saved. And if your prayer will be answered, the Jews will be saved, too.