Rue

Fior you trendy leftist experts on good and evil and ethics and sinister evil Israel, once again I ask you to read the words of the late Zoher Moessein, head of PLO bureau of military operation: "There is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians and Lebanese; we are all members of the same nation. Solely for political reasons are we careful to stress our identity as Palestinians. Since a separate State of Palestine would be an extra weapon in Arab hands to fight Zionism with. Yes, we do call for the creation of a Palestinian state for tactical reasons. Such a state would be a new means of continuing the battle against Zionism, and for Arab unity." You sit in your smug sheltered Western homes free of conflict, and you lecture on Israel as if you understand its origins or what it really means to the Muslim world. If you were to actually make a point of reading Muslim literature and speeches and position papers, instead of revisionist essays from non Muslims, you might just get some insight. You might also want to read the information from the arab-sponsored Institute for Palestinian Studies in Beirut that concluded that your revisionist comments that Arabs were forcefully removed from Palestine is b.s. In fact they estimated there were 400,000 refugees and that 68% were never expelled but chose to leave without ever having any contact with Israeli soldiers. Oh I know, I make it all up. How about instead of relying on a few revisionist essays on the internet, you Palestine experts go find the book From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. No she is not pro-Israel. She was on the other hand able to document that the same number of Jewish refugees were expelled from Arab nations during the same period of 194801950 as were Palestinian Muslims/Arabs from Israel. There were 120,000 Jews thrown out of Iraq for starters. In case any of you revisionists care to read, it is a fact that about one million Jews from the Muslim countries in the Middle East were thrown out, their properties confiscated and had to be integrated into Israel's society from 1948-1950. Where does that fit in to your Israel bad, Palestine good scenario? I have yet to hear one of you Palestinian historic geniuses explain to me why it is when Muslims are dispossessed from land that is bad, but when the same thing happened to Jews, you completely ignoire it. This is again why I will repeat, this is not simply one side being bad and the other good, its about both Jews and Palestinians being dispossessed. Only in your revisionist world where you make idiotic comments that Palestine should be a secular democractic state, none of you bothers to stop for one second to understand with the exception of Israel there has never been nor will there be a democractic state in the Middle East. It is not in the history or culture of the Muslim world to seperate religion from state and so it will never have a secular state. As for democracy, oh I love it when you throw out the notion of a democratic state like boom and presto Jews and Arabs will live in a democratically elected state of mutual tolerance. This is because you ignore reality and the fact that daily on the radio, on t.v., and in its newspapers, cultural, schools and in its museums, Muslims are taught to hate Jews, Christians and anyone else who does not share their views. This crap about democracy is fine for you to throw about because you haven't a clue what Muslims in the real world in the Middle East truly think about the values you take for granted.

I have yet to see one of you posters claiming what I have presented is factually wrong, provide anything other then your subjective opinions to point out with facts and documentation what I have said that is wrong. I guess I can hold my breath. The simple reason for that is that with due respect the majority of you base your opinions on very little historic fact but heavy on revisionist essays you quickly find on the inter-net. Let us talk actual history to show how full of poo poo some of you are when it comes to your comments on Palestinians being the only victims and refugees. Let us back up top your use of the word Palestine. How trendy. There was never a country called Palestine. It is a geographic term the Romans once used. The land referred in the Bible as Judea and Somaria, or the land of Milk and Honey is Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and today's Israel and part of Egypt. Once and for all, get it through your thick skulls there were no states in the Middle East until Britain and France drew up their colonial maps after World War One. The geographic area you like to call Palestine was not Palestine but part of a larger area that went from the Byzantine Empre to the Umayyad Empire to the Abbasid Empire to the Tulumid Empire back to the Byzantines then to the Salijuqs, then came the Christian Crusaders, then the Ayyubid Empre, then the Mamluke Empire, and then of course the Ottoman (Turk) Empire. Never was there a country of citizens living there. The Palestine Mandate was in fact created by the League of Nations at the San Remo Conference with the sole intention of establishing a national homeland for Jews. This mandate was given to Britain with that sole purpose. Britain then decided to turn around and vilate this mandate by taking 4/5ths of the land defined in the mandate and giving it to the Arabs. It did this by seperating the land into Mintaqa or by taking all of Eastern Palestine (West Bank) and what is now Jordan and creating a puppet state it coulod control. This puppet state, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, consists of the majority of the land of Palestine. To this day Jews are not allowed citizenship in this country so when one of you trendy left wing revisionists talks about a democractic secular state for Jews and Muslims please remember that. Of course you can call me names and claim what I say is untrue but it won't change the above which is historic fact and not my personal opinion. It is also an historic fact that the 1947 areas allocated by the Partition Plan by the United Nations was seized by Egypt and Jordan although you would love to think only Jews seized Palestinian land. Now I defy any of you to tell me one thing I said above which is not historically true before you lecture anyone else on the injustice of Palestine and how it is simple bad v.s. good. You know nothing about what you think you are talking about and until you read and figure out where this name Palestine came from of course everything I say to you will seem wrong. It won't fit into your simplistic notion that Palestine is what Israel is today. It won't fit into your simplistic idea that Jordan and Egypt and Syria and Lebanon have nothing to do with Palestine. It won't fit into your simplistic notion that the tiny sliver of land Jews were trying to settle in was less then 1/5th of Palestine and that legally they could have argued for much more but chose not do. Of course do any of you even have a clue what happened to Jews and their property in the Middle East prior to 1948? I doubt it.

Rue, Rue, Rue. Simply saying that does not make it so. It is a fact, the Palestinian people are under military occupation by Israel an no denial on your part of this plain fact can serve to prove you are anywhere near impartial on this topic. In fact, it is apparent over many posts that your views on this subject are not merely factually unfounded, and ethically inexplicable, they are also intransigent. Well that's nice. Now prove one thing I have said is factually wrong. Prove it. I am waiting.

Alright I am going to be factual. This so called reference to "new historians" is probably reference to Benny Morris a Jewish writer who is NOT an historian and who has written anti-Israel essays. If that is who we are referring to I would urge you to read someone else. Now for me, where I gather my information is to in fact read the speeches and notes of the Arab League delegates during the period of 1945-1949 and up to 1952 if we are to talk about whether the Arab League made meaningful attempts to try achieve peace with Israel post 1949. If you want to buy into the preconceived notion of Israel bad Palestine good, then you can find pro-Arab League and pro-Palestinian essays suggesting just that. My contention would be neither for or against either the Palestinian or Israeli positions. My contention would be as follows. The poster above in his depiction of displaced Palestinians ignores completely that Jews were also displaced. A survey of all the literature available on displaced Jews and Palestinians at the end of 1949 would estimate 530,000 displaced Palestinians although essays vary from 430,000 to as high as 957,000. Jews displaced from Arab countries would be anywhere from 600 to 850,000. The fact is BOTH Palestines and Jews were displaced. This is not a matter of simply Arabs in Palestine displaced. It is also a matter of hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, and so on. Now revisionists who are pro Palestinian would argue the Arab League was reasonable because it argued after Israel signed treaties with Egypt, Trans Jordan, Syria and Iraq in 1949, that all Palestinians should be allowed to return to Israel and that the reasonable solution would be to have a Palestinian state that was not Jewish but would be made up of a majority of Muslims and a minority of Jews. That is what the Arab league felt was reasonable. The British proposal, was to have a piece of land for Israel and two pieces of land for Muslims each being autonomous. The Arab League concept was one Muslim jaority nation. The problem is the enclave proposed for Jews and the two proposed for Muslims completely ignored Trans Jordan or 70% of Palestine which was created by the British as one of its colonies. It also ignored sections of Lebanon and Syria carved out for French colonies. So if you want to revise history and believe Palestine is only where ISrael from 1949 to 1967 was, go ahead but the point is Palestine was roughly Israel, Transjordan, (today Jordan) the Gaza and a bit of Syria and Lebanon and the borders changed from Rome to Greece to the Turks to the British to the French. As well this idea that Palestine had no Jews is revisionist b.s. just as it is revisionist b.s. to ignore all the Jews expelled from the Middle East Arab nations between the 1920's to date but particularily in the days of 1948-49 when the Arab world had embraced anti-semitism and Nazi philosophy and did not distinguish its debate against Zionism with anti-semitism. Benny Morris and many leftists who believe Israel is a neo-colonial state created by the West have no validity because they see the situation as one good guy and one bad guy and they select historic facts based on the perspective that Jews were not native to or had a right to land in Israel. They also completely ignore the reality opf dhimmitude in the Middle East and its impact on Jewish property rights which can not be ignored if we are to be fair and discuss Muslim rights to property. I again contend that in the Middle East both Palestinians and Israeli Jews, can make eq2ually as valid arguements to having been displaced and being unfairly treated. I as well completely attack the notion that the Arab League offer to create a Palestinian state with a majority of Muslims and a minority of Jews was a reasonable solution. It may be reasonable if you were a Muslim who did not seperate religion from state and felt that Jews should remain a minority and pay taxes on land pursuant to dhimmitude, but if you were a Jew this meant a continuation of a two tier property system that discriminated against them. So yes Palestinians were displaced and that is unfair, but yes again Jews were treated unfairly and displaced. As a result of them both being displaced, there was a need for them both to have countries. All we are doing is whining about the fact that Palestine is not a Muslim state to this day. Nothing is to stop Palestinians from forming a nation in the Gaza and West Bank. Nothing but themselves and their desire to have all of Israel. So revise all you want and quote Benny Morris but it doesn't change the facts or the speeches from the Arab League that make it clear since 1949 the only thing it has ever suggested is that Israel be turned into a Muslim state.

But they are decidedly not 'both equally cursed'. One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other. FOUL! Sorry it is a fair question. I am not the one who has injected being sick and tired and a need to combat Israeli apologists into this debate. It is a fair question. Why is it someone who defends the right to Israel to exist makes someone like Higgly so sick and tired? As for your comment that One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other-this is precisely the kind of one sided, simplistic comment that proves you are bias. Just as it can be argued Palestinians feel under the boot of Israelis, Israelis can make the same arguement of Palestinians. The point is both sides feel under threat and oppresed and if you want to continue to depict this as only one good guy and ne bad guy go watch WWE wrestling.

In fact modern historians have come to the conclusions that is was the Israelis who were the difficult ones and that the Arabs - the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the Syrians - did make honest efforts at peace following the 1948 war. This nonsense about the Arabs refusing to agree to peace terms is just Israeli mythinformation. Once again we have one of Israel's apologists (that's you Dancer) demanding that other states take responsibility for a problem that Israel created. "Modern Historians" is that a club we can join? They all agree do they? Iz that a fact? So syria was willing to trade palestinians for water? How ...umm....generous. Why won't they allow any now? Queen Noor is a palestinian? When did Washington DC get annexed by palestine? Who are these modern historians you refer to? Me thinks "modern historian" refers to someone you like who has revised history to suit a preconceived notion or bias of yours as opposed to someone reporting facts as they really happened. To state the Arab League was reasonable after 1949, and after they lost the war is laughable. Now prove it. Show us the documentation that leads you to make such a comment and repudiate what I stated or stop with the hilarity and revisionism. Put up some documentation to indicate which Arab League members or politicians engaged in peaceful diaologue and tried to be "reasonable" and where and when so we can see if you are actually basing your comments on something or are just blowing anti-kosher air.

You got to be joking. You think Bush and Chaney are in the position to second guess Clinton given their record to date? Where have you been.

Mr. Anthony all I get for feeding pigeons is having them poop on my head. They are flying rats and I do not see how some people eat them. I did have one as a pet but it made such a damn mess as soon as I could get it to fly I let it go. Now I had a pet crow but they are cleaner and much smarter and remember things and will peck you on the ear and steal stuff and the crow I raised would come back even two years later and land on my shoulder. But this is not why we have this post. As a former Montrealer to answer Leaf's question, I would say I have always believed that the Quebec seperatist movement was racist. We always heard talk of being Purlains and seperatists would talk about who was more pure French in ancestry. Mr. Parizeau was a prime example of this kind of idiot who felt his living in France and speaking a sort of French academic tone made him purlains and more Quebecois then others. Of course seperatism in Quebec is tied to wanting to be with other people who are of the same culture. It was never just about language. People from French Africa, Haiti, French speaking Arab peoples from Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, they have all experienced that it is not justa bout speaking French it is also about being purlains or white French from Normandy, etc. The racism in Quebec and in particular in Montreal towards people from Haiti is well known. Hell you had a Montreal police man shoot a Haitian in the back in broad day-light and get away with it. The witnesses saw this cop shoot the guy right in the back after taunting him. I have personally seen Montreal police taunt Haitians and the only reason I did not get my head punched in is because at the time I was working for the federal government and had an i.d. card with sufficient authority so that when I showed it to them and told them to leave the guy alone they drove off. No things are not peechy swell in Quebec as long as you speak French. Its a bit more complex then that. But for me there is racism and immigration or new Canadian intolerance or intolerance for native peoples everywhere. I think it just for me is a bit more meaningful coming from Quebec and listening to all this b.s. about how the Parti Quebecois was a party of equality and welcomed anyone who speaks French. Yah right. Mr. Parizeau was a complete racist although Rene Levesque genuinely was not and genuinely got along with all groups. Mr. Levesque was one of the few Parti Quebecois people above this nonsense. Likewise Lucien Bouchard. They were good people unlike many of their followers. I also think Mr. Duceppes genuinely has tried to distance himself from the racist element of his seperatist followers but it is always there. The nationalism in Quebec goes back to their love in with Real Couettes and the Social Creditistes and Marcel Dupplessis and the Union Nationales and their love in with facism and Mussolini and the anti-semitism taught to them by the Catholic Church. Its still very much a society afraid of culture or zenophobic. Part of the desire to stay French is a fear of other cultures changing them. All I know is I will always be a Habs fan and a true Habs fan is multi-cultural and bi-lingual by nature.

I personally believe our fighting soldiers truly believe they are in Afghanistan to protect Afghanis from terrorists and to help build a democractic nation. Here is what I personally believe. I believe that the Americans and the Russians before them were and are only interested in Afghanistan because of its strategic position and the geographic role it would play in hosting a pipeline that could transport oil from the Caspean Sea to Asian markets and get oil corporations more money then simply selling the Caspean oil to European markets. The US had oil corporations (Unicon) all ready to build major pipelines through Afghanistan before the Taliban took over and demanded the US pay a premium to build the pipeline. I personally believe the chasing after Osama Ben Laden and fighting terrorists is a cover to justiofy invading Afghanistan to try secure it as a subservient state so the pipeline can be built and no ransom paid to Taliban to run it through the country. I believe if the US and other countries were genuinely interested in fighting terrorism instead of using such a notion as a pretense to secure oil pipelines and strategic positoning they wouldn't be invading countries and using coventional armies as proxy governments and political police but would be sticking to using small, elite, lightening attack, commando units that would be going in and out, killing terrorists and then disappearing. The decision to leave conventional armies on the ground and turn them into non profit development organizations or fraternal organizations is nothing more then colonialism and the exercise of using conventional armies as security guards to protect financial interests. Canada went into Afghanistan without properly thinking it through. Afghanistan is now 50% controlled by the Taliban and within 2 years will be 100% controlled. The Taliban now consists of three components. One component are militant Muslim Talibanm fropm Afghanistan. Another component is the Pashtuns and many other tribes of people shut out of the current Afghanistan government council and who have joined Taliban. A third component is what I call mercanaries, outside Muslim radicals from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., whoa re inspired by their religious beliefs and another component-the unemployed Muslim male who can be from Afghanistan or anywhere else and is getting paid to fight. Canada can not win this because Afghani citizens as much as they may not like Taliban or their fellow tribes, will not turn on their country men and be seen as collaborators. The notion Canadian soldiers can walk into villages and serve tea and play cards is dangerous and naive. We have turned our soldiers into sitting ducks in a war of attrition. All that is going to happen as the years go on is that many of them will die from suicide and terrorist attacks or isolated brief one to day day gun fire battles. They will not and can not win th minds of Afghanis. The longer they stay, the more the resentment will build. The fact is the current Afghani government is not democractic. It is a puppet regime consisting of drug lords who prop up the current President and are not sharing the wealth. A civil war has begun in Afghanistan because too many tribes have been shut out of participating in the government. Now as for the Taliban or militant Muslims, most of them are not Al Quaeda. They will form alliances with any Muslim against the US, Canada, etc., but it doesn't mean they are Al Quaeda. It means more like your enemy is our enemy today, then tomorrow once we have got rid of that enemy, we will then settle our differences. Taliban is now really Pushtun. Pushtun are the same tribal warriors that the CIA propped to beat the Soviets. Pushtun have defeated far better and more equipped troops that our Canadians. We are talking abou the only warriors to actually beat the Ghurkas the world's toughest army. These are mountain warriors that can subsist on little food or water and spend years in cold mountains waiting out their enemies. So you ask me, Canada for naive reasons, has itself stuck in an oil war trying tp preserve the oil congamorates pipe-line empire. That said I support our troops, I just do not think they should be there for the reasons and purpose we have them there. I believe we should be part of a UN force of anti-terrorist commando strike forces hunting and killing terrorists world-wide. I appreciate that will not happen. So I understand part of our army's fight is to prevent terrorism by fighting it overseas, but I do believe we are simply cultivating more terrorists by allowing ourselves to get bogged down in a colonial occupation. I believe the UN and not NATO should be calling any shots, and I think the solution is to get out but leave the option open to attack at any time against terrorists anywhere. I think it is unrealistic to believe we can convince Muslims in Afghanistan to treat women as equals and allow them in schools, or to vote like we do, etc. This idea we can go to Afghanistan and teach them all to love Tim Horton's coffee and doughnuts is the same dumb colonial idiocy that we once called being missionaries and converting savages to Christianity. You can't impose democracy. It has to grow naturally from within a society. We seem to think we can just show up and impose it. Its like trying to grow a plant in a field of poppies. Well you can as long asyou are willing to take artificial means to do it. Once you let it be, the poppies will take over again because we are ignoring natural evolution and thinking we can speed up a process that may take many more centuries. Well you say, can we afford to wait for the Muslim world to develop to the point where it develops critical reasoning and democracy. Yes. But yes we will have to be prepared to quarantine and isolate them until they do. One way to do that is to be more prudent in how we interact with them and what kind of relationships we cultivate while we wait. The American/British/French approach of propping up corupt regimes may require some fine tuning and more sophisticated manipulation of radical clerics and their governments. It may be instead of sending in the troops our governments should show a bit more cunning and allow the inter-net to infect the Muslim world with MacDonalds and Beyonce and Coke, and hip-hop music, and Nike and the NBA, etc., slowly.

Higgly stop with the emotional baiting and references such as being sick and tired or Zionists with smacking lips. You want me to debate you, then make an attempt to provide me with information that counters anything I have said and proves it wrong. Otherwise Higgly you have no credibility and you are just another of a long list of people that finds Israel bad, Jews bad, Palestinians innocent victims. Most importantly read back your response. Stating Palestinians are not responsible for the holocaust says it all. No one in any discussion ever raised the notion that Palestinians are responsible for the holocaust The fact you brought it up shows you obviously have unresolved issues with the holocaust and resent the idea or notion that Jews in Israel might be just as "victimized" as Palestinians which was the point and only point. The difference between us Higgly is I dop not attempt to portray Palestinians as bad and unfair or Israeli Jews as bad or unfair. I see them both as equals, both equally cursed by historic evens beyond their control. This is not the black and white, good v.s.bad, victim and oppressor equation you opine it is and I suggest rather then ask me about dhimnmitude, and demand references, you simply take your butt into a library or type in dhimmitude on the inter-net and read instead of taking Wikapedia out of context. You might also want to try read some history books and challenge yourself and your preconceptions unless of course you are satisfied you have figured it all out...in which case what do you say Higgly want to come out of the closet and tell us what you mean by being sick and tired of....who you really resentful towards-Israel? Jews for being refugees and escaping the holocaust, people who think both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have equally as valid arguements? Spit it out Higgly. Why so angry and sick and tired. what have Israelis ever done to you? Is there someone kosher in your life you are angry at? Come on Higgly debate what I have said. Stop with the lip smacking zionist and sick and tired comments and debate the issues. I can debate issues. I can't debate your anger or feelings. Want to keep me honest, avoid turning this personal and debate what I have said and prove its wrong.

I welcome anyone debating this issue and providing information to counter what I stated.

Now since Higgly challenged my earlier comments as to the origins of Israel I wish to clarify them so there is no mistaking what I said. I stated that in 1948 when Israel began preparing to form as a state leading up to the war of 1949, this depiction of Jews simply stealing land from Arabs and causing them to flee is absolute simplistic tripe. First of all let's be clear on what Palestine was in the early 1900's and late 1880's. It was an empty piece of swamp. The land was inhospitable and no one was living there. It was a back-water. In 1906 for your information, the population of Jerusalem was 60,000 of whom only 7,000 were Muslim, 13,000 were Christian and 40,000 were Jews, but in the revisionist history of today's anti-Israelists they are unaware of such facts and would like it to appear there were no Jews in Palestine and suddenly presto bango they all showed up in 1949 to seize the land. Let us talk actual historic facts. 6 months before the 1949 War of Independence, 350,000 Muslims fled what the 1949-1967 border of Israel long before there were any shellings. To say shellings caused them to flee is absolute and utter b.s. They did not leave because of any shelling. They left because Dr. Khalil Hussein created and spread a lie called the massacre of Deir Yassin in which Arabs were told Zionists had slaughtered thousands of Arabs, causing them to panic and flee and this is why 350,000 left long before the actual war of independence. In fact Yasir Arafat the late leader of the PLO stated on many instances that 300,000 Arabs were forced to flee by Egypt to the Gaza Strip in 1949. Even Arafat made it clear Egypt andnot Israel caused that movement of people to the Gaza. That said, 80% of Israel's 20,850 square kilometres could be argued as being abandoned property that Arab Palestinians might want to make a claim to, but then it should be made clear of that 80% of land, 25% of that 80% was wasteland and not capable of sustaining life. It would have been swamp and bog or malaria mud puddles. Now you can revise history all you want and depict Jews as thieves stealing existing property but this is b.s. Yes some of the land was purchased from Palestinians but often at inflated prices because Palestinians chose to grab the inflated values offered. You want to depict it as evil Zionists be my guest, but the fact is Israel has tried to offer financial compensation for land but has been rejected for the simple reason that the Arab League has stated just compensation means ending the state of Israel and allowing all Palestinians to move back. Nowhere in the history of war and refugees has one ethnic group after it lost a war and been displaced made such continuing demands and completely dominated the UN's agenda. So let's call it the way it really is. To do that I go back to March 31, 1977, when the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with then Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein that says it all and I quote it verbatum; "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. " As I stated earlier to pretend Palestine is a unique and unjust situation is b..s. Palestinian refugees and the notion of fighting for Palestine is a pretense to destroy Israel. Palestinian leaders tell the West one thing and their people and the Arab peoples another. This is precisely why Hamas and Hezbollah will not recognize Israel. This isn't about creating a nation called Palestine, it is about destroying Israel. Palestinians are despised by Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians. The only function they serve is an excuse to fight Israel and depict the Arab world as victims of colonialism. The fact is the Arab world openly embraced Hitler and Nazism just as it has embraced anti-semitism, anti-Christianism, anti-Hinduism, and just as it has committed hatred and war against Jews, Christians, Bahaiis, Zorastreans, gays, communists, trade unionists, feminists in its midst. Now you want to talk about b.s. and nonsense and drivel try this on. Here are direct quotes from the Arab world, not from nasty bad guy Zionists as to the origins of the Palestinian refugees: 1-Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), in an address to the UN Security Council, April 23, 1948 said: "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes,belongings and everything they possessed." 2-Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, stated in the Beirut Daily Telegraph, on Sept. 6, 1948; "The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..." 3-Habib Issa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, stated in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda on June 8, 1951 , "in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states." 4- in the March 1976 edition of Falastin a-Thaura, the official journal of the PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live." 5-The London Economist reported, in its Oct. 2/48 edition that; "There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit ... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." 6- The then Premier of Syria in 1948, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, stated and I quote directly; " ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land." So I will close with the following comment. Unlike some of you who choose to read what you want to hear and choose to depict the Middle East as a simple right v.s. wrong conflict and deliberately choose to ignore reading and researching the matter thinking Wikapedia makes you an authority on Jewish or Middle East history, it is not a simple black and white issue and most certainly the Arab League of Nations deliberately chose to create Palestinian refugees as a political ploy and it works precisely because the next generation such as yourself forget history and are ignorant of anything that happens five years ago let alone 40 years ago. However some of us bother to read and remember.

O.k. Higgly you made an incredibly ignorant statement that Jews were allowed to own land in Europe and demanded I explain where they weren't allowed to own land. So I will be pleased to explain since I am assuming with a name like Higgly instead of Shapiro or Goldfarb your Jewish history in Europe may be lacking. To start with, please refer to any history book that discusses the existence of Jews in the diaspora, which I might add are all mostly written by non Jews and you will see unanimous agreement that until the 18th century Jews were forced to be pettry traders and money lenders, precisely because they were not allowed to own land in Europe. Napoleon was the first European leader sympathetic to Jews and trying to emancipate them and treat them as equals. He was in fact the first European supporter of Jews returning to Israel. Up to the 18th century Jews were forcefully expelled and slaughtered where-ever they lived in Europe and this was directly linked to the preachings of the Christian Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic sects. In fact the holocaust was the largest but by far not only slaughter of Jews. Now in 1812, yes in Prussia Jews could own land BUT THEY HAD TO USE a German name. You would have to go through each country in Europe to examine what conditions it placed on land ownership for Jews but what was clear was this-if Jews did own land there were restrictive covenants placed on the terms of ownership and use of the land that did not apply to Christians. That is the point. As well the point is that slaughters in Eastern Europe particularily in Russia forced Jews in the 1880's to constantly be on the run unable to own land as it was seized or stolen and the constant being on the run from slaughters is precisely why they began buying land in Palestine and began sending relatives there. I will not waste my energy responding to you further other then to say from the late 1880's to the end of the second world war, anti-semitism and institutional and wide spread promulgation of laws discriminating against Jews, enabled all their land and property to be stolen, seized and/or destroyed. Switzerland became the bank of choice to take and store stolen Jewish property. The Nazi Empire and its sattelite nations, Italy, and the Warsaw Pact nations of post World War Two, all stole and seized Jewish land and property and made it impossible for Jews to own land. You asked for names of countries, try Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Russia, Germany, Croatia, Poland, Bulgaria, to name a few although the Bulgarian King himself was not an anti-semite and it was mostly the policies of either the Communists or the Nazis before them. As for France, it has always discriminated against Jews and was a principal player in seizing Jewish land and property leading up to World War Two. Which brings us to my final point in this second response. When people like you attempt to revise history and simplify the history of Jews, as being Jews bad, Palestinians good, I have one thing to say to you. Jews like Palestinians have had their land, their property and their lives destroyed, ruined and taken away both by Christian European nations and by Muslim nations following the laws of dhimmitude. So when we talk about Palestinians requiring just compensation also remember Jews are entitled to it as well and the irony is, if you want to simplify this as Jews being bad guy colonial expansionists who stole property then get it right, they are no different then Palestinians-they are displaced refugees and the idea of trying to repatriate them back to Europe and given them back their lands and properties is as impractical as saying o.k. lets simply move all Palestinians into Israel. This is why in my equation there is no good and bad, there are simply two cursed people both in need of just treatment.

Well Higgly since you told me to watcg what I say to you, I can't resist the urge to respond to you. Where to we start. Oh how about your ignorance as to what dhimmitude is since you feel you are an authority on it after reading some info from Wikapedia which you clearly have not understood. Let's see if we can explain it to you. The concept of dhimmitude is directly related to the concept of confiscating land in the name of Islam as part of a holy war. Land is seized in one of three ways; 1-by force and violence, i.e., you kill the people on the land or tsake them captive and take it away; 2- without force, land is taken away from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear or have died out 3-through treaty, i.e., the owners are forced either to convert to Islam to be able to own the land, or if they want to continue to reside on the land and they are not Muslim, they must pay jizya and become dhimmis Now I really don't have time to educate you any further on this other then to say you do yourself a diservice if you think you can make statements on dhimmitude such as Jews can own land in Islamic countries without properly taking the time to understand it and understand the concept of Islamic religion and its lack of seperation between state and religion and therefore land ownership. No doubt you are also ignorant of the fact that since 1948, 900,000 Jews in the Middle Eaqst's Arab nations have had their land confiscated and have been displaced precisely because of this law. I will respond again to your other comments in a moment. I need to pee.

That's pretty much just a bunch of left field mutterings, the whole concept of the pipeline being secure. We (Canadian resource companies) have pipelines and full operations through Yemen, Kuwaitt, Iran, Sudan, Libya... the list goes on. Afghanistan pre-intervention was a relatively more secure place than most of those countries. That argument doesn't hold an ounce of water. Oh now Geoffrey here is your ounce of water not from left leaning mutters but the CIA and US Department of energy; The KGB during the Soviet occupation, estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves are approximately five trillion cubic feet. In the mid-1970s, production had reached as high 275 million cubic feet per day. Afghanistan's relation to the balance of energy and power in Central Asia clearly is inter-related to its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea and both the U.S. State Department and public articles published by the CIA have said the same. We should not forget that in early January of 1998, an agreement was signed between Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban to arrange funding of an 890-mile,natural gas pipeline project estimated to cost about 2 billion in US dollars. That proposed pipeline would have moved natural gas from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad natural gas field to Pakistan, and would have run from Dauletabad in a southerly direction to the Afghan border, through the areas of Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan, to Quetta, Pakistan. This line would have also linked Pakistan's natural gas grid at Sui. Unocal a U.S. oil conglamorate (with ties to the Bush family of course) was to finance the bulk of the project. Unocal renaged of course due to political instability. Unocal according to is public relations info had also been thinking of building a 1,000-mile oil pipeline that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan with Pakistan's Arabian Sea coast via Afghanistan. Afghanistan is of course a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. Now come on let's get real. The Caspian Sea region has oil and gas resources estimated at 4 trillion, if you believe the U.S. News and World Report which is of course a right wing magazine and not some left wing muttering source. We also know the oil and gas from the Caspean region currently moves northward towards European markets.. An advantage of using an Afghan route, would be that such a pipeline would terminate in the Arabian Sea, which would of course be much closer to key Asian markets. Such a pipeline would be great for the interests of U.S. oil corporations because it would allow them to sell their oil to the Asian market and that means China, Japan and India, not to mention South Korea and so they would get a hell of a lot more money for their oil then they get now in the European market. So the question is, how do you build this pipeline if Afghanistan if it is run by Taliban or other angry people with beards. Not good for business. So part of what we see today is an attempt to turn Afghanistan into a Western puppet nation to enable it to be safe for the oil pipelines to run through it. Come on let us get real its always about oil. If Afghanistan had no strategic importance for future pipe-lines the US and for that matter Russia would have cared less about it. I personally think fighting terrorists is a pretense, If we were just fighting terrorists we would be in and out of Afghanistan with strategic precision attacks and not trying to prop up a "democratic" government which to me is a euphenism for a friendly client state.

The economic disruptions would last at least a decade. It would take at least a generation to get back to where everyone would have been without the crisis. Frankly, it is a big waste of time and energy and is not even worth considering since there are many other options available that could improve the way gov't works in this country without requiring a crisis. Nothing moves in Canada on government reform until someone is about to leave. Now if you had a child who insisted on living at home, eating your food and taking a generous allowance from you but at the same time claiming to be independent and insisting on living their own rules, wouldn't you simply say, take yer friggin butt out and get a job and find yer own home? Quebec has carried on like the proverbial post puberty child that insists on being treated independently but still being able to suck on mama's tits. I say someone should tell Quebec it is way to old to breast feed and that if other provinces want to breast feed they should realize Canada's tits have shriveled and its time they concentrate on finding alternative souces of dairy products.

Now you went and ruined everything by trying to bring logic and rationality into the debate. Lol.

It sounds like you have no interest whatsoever in acheiving an agreed peace of any kind. If you won't acknowledge the source point of the dispute, any attempt at a discussion based on reason is out the window, isn't it? Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments? I'd say the principles of compensation ought to be applied equally to all participants, so: -Jews forced to leave homes - yes -attacks on Israel by Arab states - yes, for 1948, 1956, 1973. -security costs - no -murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments - yes, on case by case basis for killings outside the scope of 'fair' warfare. Personally, I think the solution on Jerusalem would be something like this: -city declared heritage of all humanity and put under governance of a UN Security Council sub-committee. -said subcommittee appoints Israel the administrator and security protector of the city for 50 or 100 years, subject to subcommittee's broad policies. -both Israel and the Palestinian state permitted to make Jerusalem their ceremonial capital, provided that they maintain an administrative capital in another city. Fig I strongly support the existence of the state of Israel but where I differ from a lot of Israel supporters is that I personally agree with the concept of Jerusalem being an international protectorate but still being the administrative capitals for both Palestine and Israel. To me it seems to be the only fair way to deal with all this shit. However Fig the reality is, I doubt you will find too many Jews at this point willing to give up Jerusalem without a fight to the death. It is as emotional an issue to them as say the Mosque of Oman is to Muslims. Fig I come across very strong on the right for Israel to exist but don't like any organized religions precisely because I think all they do is entrench conflict. Now its time for me to give this big mouth a rest and let someone else talk for awhile on this topic. I dominated it too much.

None. zero. Completely fair. Bang on. etc.

First of all the laws of dhimmi most certainly forbid Israelis from owning land and engaging in the same ownership of land and same rules of business interactions as Muslims. That is a fact. Secondly for you to say European countries did nto forbid Jews from owning land at any time in modern history is complete and utterly wrong and for you to state these two things, once again shows yet someone else ignorant of the history of Jews in Europe lecturing someone whose relatives were forbidden to own land and fleed Europe because of persecution. Now you seem to have selectively quoted article 20 of the Geneva Convention forbiding the settling of conquered land but clearlyt you have no idea what this article means and what it applies to. You clearly have chosen to ignore other articles and international law which allows a sovereign nation to protect itself from imminent threats of attack and terror. Now perhaps you like Myata and all these young people who have not a clue about the origins of Israel but carry on as if you do need to once and for all review the facts; between 1517 and 1917, the Ottoman Empire of Turkey controlled the areas of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Supporting Germany during the First World War, the Turks were defeated and in 1916, the southern portion of control was mandated to Britain and France - Lebanon and Syria going to France, with Palestine (the areas known today as Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank) controlled by the British. Jews had begun mass immigration to Palestine during the 1880’s and slowly started changing the very landscape from malarial swamps and dry desserts to farmable land. This also attracted a large number of Arab immigrants who were looking for employment and better living conditions. In 1923 Palestine was divided into two areas by the British – 25% of the land (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish homeland and administratively run by the Palestinian Jews. The remaining 75%, called Trans-Jordan would be the Arab-Palestinian homeland. Arab Palestinians began a systematic effort to drive out the Jews from the area west of the Jordan River with continuous attacks on Jewish settlements. Most widely known was the 1936-39 “Arab Revolt”, where attacks on Jews continued mercilessly. The British, who once protected the Jews and Arabs from each other, soon began ignoring the situation after many of their own died getting in between Arabs and Jews. The Jews began pouring more and more resources into their own defensive force called the Hagana, which eventually became the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). By 1947, the British had grown weary of the Middle East and left it to the United Nations to decide the fate of the region. The UN passed resolution 181 partitioning the land west of the Jordan River (the original 25% of Palestine) into a Jewish Palestinian state and an Arab Palestinian state. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arabs rejected it, claiming all of Palestine. On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews celebrated for the first time as Israelis, but on the following day, seven neighboring Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen invaded the new state. Many Arabs who were living within the new Israeli boundaries were encouraged to leave by the other Arab states so a mass invasion could wipe out all of the Jews. The Arabs, who were anticipating an easy victory, promised Jewish land and property in return. The Independence War lasted about a year and a half and the Arabs that had stayed in the Israeli boundaries became Israeli citizens; those that had left are known as one of the first waves of “refugees”. Israel now had a state that was a little bit bigger than it was before the war, though their population was reduced slightly by the casualties sustained during the war. The area that was Arab Palestine was now controlled by Egypt (taking the Gaza Strip) and Jordan (occupying the West Bank). Jordan annexed this territory and the land east and west of the Jordan River was simply called Jordan. In 1964 the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formed. Led by Yasser Arafat, it claimed to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. They vowed to reclaim the land and destroy the state of Israel. In 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies began to mobilize along the borders of Israel. Israel called for a pre-emptive strike and attacked Egypt, utterly destroying their Air Force within two hours. Jordan launched their attack from the West Bank, unaware of Egypt’s loss, while the Syrian army attacked from the Golan Heights mountains into the north. The Israelis won the war in six days and now controlled the Sinai Desert, the West Bank (including all of Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. In 1973 on the eve of the holiest Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. After initial losses suffered due to the surprise, Israel still controlled most of the territory gained from the 1967 six-day war. In 1979, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat signed a mutual recognition pact with Israel in exchange for the return of the Sinai Desert. Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, using the natural barrier of the mountains as defense. In response to terrorism from the north, Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982 and went as far north as Beirut. By 1985, Israeli troops withdrew from most of Lebanon, but kept a security zone on the southern border. Israel built settlements on the land captured in the 1967 war throughout the 1980’s. In response, the Palestinians launched the first intifada (uprising) against Israeli occupation in 1987. Peace talks were launched and the Oslo Accords in 1993 attempted to pave the way for peace. Mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel and limited self-rule for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were the highlights of the agreement; Jordan also signed a peace treaty with Israel. Instead of being selective with history or making statements which are just not true, take the time to read about the laws forbidding Jews from owning land in Europe or the Middle East before you make such blanket statements. More to the point, stop conveniently and selectively ignoring the fact that Jordan occupies the vast majority of Palestine and in your tendy revisionism or that of Myiata's or Black Dog's because you people find it easier to define this as black and white, you don't want to go back and ask yourself where the hell Jordan came from and what it did in 1967 with the Palestinians. Yes legally the Arab League of Nations is legally and morally responsible for advising Arabs to flee Israel. Your suggestion Arabs in Israel were shelled is ignorant. Many Arabs did not leave and were not shelled. The shelling you talk about was isolated because the Israeli defence force at the time was a rag tag army and it was only directed at the Arab League Armies which ran the moment war began. Now let me conclude by stating, you can continue repeating comments and ignoring history and revising it but each and every time you talk about Israel and try revise history I will be here like a boil on your butt reminding you of what went down. It is precisely this ignoring of history that will create another holocaust only this time this is one Jew who won't sit passively by while it happens. And I also want to point out, at least in my attempts to talk about this equation, I do not refer to it as bad v.s. good or depict Palestinians as evil. I have said from day one both Jews and Palestinians have equal rights in this area. I did not choose to create wars and engage in constant terror, the Arab League and many Muslim nations and their clerics continue to do so to this day.

Firstly I agree with everything Argus said so I will not repeat what his pts. were. But in regards to the media, I do not believe the media fans or incites of creates such people. The media reflects or mirrors what is already there. The fact is these idiots have always been there. The only difference is they are reported faster now. Because we have over-concentrated our populations into centres, mass slaughters as opposed to isolated murders happen. These same lunatics in rural areas would simply kill someone in the bush or their families but be seperated from everyone else. Modern urban societies means condensed populations and more people in one spot. That said, do these idiot games on the computer create this. Sorry. They used to say that about comic books and Elvis Presely. It wasn't too long ago people were being told to burn and destroy Beetles records. No I go back to what Argus said. This is all about nuclear family units and strong parental and authority figures being lacking in the formative years of a young man's life. The time to teach children and especially young men about restraint and controlling their temper is when they are young. It has to be done by their fathers, their coachs, and their role models. Today, kids are brought up in a vacum. Both parents work. They start in day care and are in a group. They do not learn as individuals anymore. This group mentality has led to kids believing they must fight for what they want. It starts in day care with toys and one authority figure for too many children and lack of proper emotional nurturing and rearing of children. The parents are too tired when they come home. Children are bought up in group settings, then go home to junk food and junk t.v. The media has an obligation to report what happens as responsibly as possible. Trying to hide from the truth or censor it is b.s. and to blame the media is b.s. They are doing their job. It is up to us as responsible adults to teach our children what to read, watch, and engage in. And it is also up to us, to turn off the movie or t.v. if we find it too violent. Sorry but where were these parents of Mr. Gill when he brought home his guns. What the hell kind of parent allows an unemployed 25 year old son to sit around with guns and spend all his time on his computer-I will tell you-weak parents in denial. If your grown child brings home a rifle and doesn't work, I think that is sufficient sign something is going wrong and needs to be addressed. Sounds like this person did not have strong parents or other role models and a value system to gain strength and self-esteem from. Blaming society for this is b.s. For every l Gill, are thousands of good kids from the exact same society and conditions. This is an individual who has failed as an individual and a family unit that has seriously failed to function as a family unit. Overall social conditions may have had some role in that but certainly are not the cause of it.

What utter nonsense! Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people. Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians. You need to keep the concept of cause and effect more clear in your head, it seems. No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens. But hey, where are these refugees from, anyway? Israel/Occupied Palestine, right? Your comments are absolutely selective so its not suprising you would try get personal with me and refer to what I said as nonsense. Urging Palestinians to flee was not reasonable and if you took the time to bother to read instead of being Mr. Know it All about an era you know nothing about, you would realize the decision to flee was based on unfounded rumours and panic. You are absolutely and completely dead wrong when you make the statement Arab states did not sign a pceace deal with Israel because there has been no redress for Palestinians. Teh Arab League did not sign a peace treaty because it chose politically to continue to remain at war with Israel. It felt the war was not over. The Arab League made the decision not to recognize any right to a Jewish country. That is why there was no peace deal. The decision not to deal with Palestinian refugees came about as aq direct result of the Arab League refusing to allow Palestinians to resettle in Arab countries and to engage in peaceful dialogue to compensate displaced Palestinians. Your history is selective. What is nonsense is for you to pretend that Israel has the moral culpability to resettle Palestinians when the Arab League refused to do the same. That is absolute and utter nonsense. Now you want to talk about nonsense. You state no state has the obligation to accept masses of refugees. Yet in the same breath you expect Israel to. Talk about double standard. Talk about nonsense. All nations have an obligation to work together to resolve conflicts. It is precisely your selective double standard that the Arab League engaged in. It expected Israel to do something it would not do, and that was accommodate displaced Palestinians. And for your information, if you bothered to read, you would find out, that those Palestinians that did not flee Israel, not only kept their land, but in years to come would win cases at the Supreme Court of Israel guaranteeing their right to own land. See you are so quick to portray this in a selective way you refuse to recognize that Israel did already accommodate Palestinians who did not flee. But I doubt you are interested in reality or history. In your world of black and white, Jews and Israel are bad, Palestinians are victims, and the Arab League has no moral responsibility for causing these Palestinians to flee in the first place. No that is all selectively ignored isn't it. So we agree I think you are as nonsensical as you think I am. Whoopy.

Myata you missed the point as do most people who ignore the origins of the Middle East and simply choose to define the Middle East since 1948. The size or amount of people in the Middle East is not the only way to define or establish the validity of legal rights to land or access to government services. What you are suggesting is that if one ethnic group has more population then another, it is not required to recognize the other's legal rights .It is simplistic to simply say, the majority of a population rules . Yes from a purely practical point of view, if you want to be democratic state, it eventually becomes impossible to be a one religion state at the same time if you genuinely want to practice democracy. The point is in a democracy you balance all kinds of minority rights with majority rights, you don't simply ignore them. Israel which is democractic unlike the Muslim world's countries which are not and do not worry about minority rights faces the dilemma of trying to remain Jewish if its majority becomes Muslim, but that is a diferent issue. The issue as to Israel's legal right to form a sovereign nation in 1948 which is what we are talking about, does not and did not start simply after the holocaust-that misnomer comes from a refusal to look back at the origins of not just Jews, but Muslims and Christians as well in the Middle East. Jews have always lived in the Middle East and so have a legal rights dating back further then any Muslim or Christian. If we want to be logical then we must agree that all three people can make equally as valid arguements to legal rights for the land or self-government. Simply being selective as to how far back one goes to determine legal rights to property is precisely what causes problems and conflicts. The fact that Jews or Christians were forcefully displaced form Palestine does not take away their rights to return just as you would argue today that Palestinians have the right to return to Israel proper. Your aguement to be logical must apply to all 3 parties equally, or necessarily becomes selective and bias and illogical. If you simply select Palestinians or Muslims as having the only or best rights and everyone else is to be categorized as pretenders you completely ignore the origins abd validity of the legal rights of Christians and Jews which would be arbitrary and therefore necessarily illogical. The point is all three can and do make equally as valid legal arguements that conflict. So please stop engaging in selectivity and portraying this as Israeli Jews bad and evil Palestinians and Muslims as good and innocent. Such formulas of good v.s. bad are for children and fairy tales not grown adults. Now since the Middle East's countries other than Israel have no democractic tradition or historic tradition of recognizing Christian or Jewish rights as being equal to Muslim rights when it comes to land, business or religion, it makes it absurd to simply blame this on Jews wanting a country and its precisely why history has been revised in the last 15 years and has gone from seeing Israel as a just conclusion and exercise in democractic rights to a bad guy nation. Although nothing at all has changed since 1949, your generation seems intent on ignoring Middle East history. The same Christians in Europe who supported the state of Israel, now see their children suggesting Israel is an unfair colonialist invention. Talk about short memories and hippocracy. Christian Europe is descended from the same Christians who for 3,500 years would not allow Jews to own land and be treated as equals and choose to ignore not just the role of the holocaust but the role of their government instititions and churches in not allowing Jews to own land or be allowed fair and equal treatment. It also ignores the forced dhimmitude Muslims imposed on both Christians and Jews and also forbid Jews and Christians from owning land or having the same rights. The fact is if the Muslim world allowed Jews to own land and did not persecute them and force them to live in ghettoes and if the Christian world did not slaughter them continuousl for 3,500 years and the world instead was a loving and democractic place, no there would be no need for Jews dreaming or wanting a soverign country of their own just like Muslims would not want Islamic nations and Christians would not have dominated Europe and North and South America's governments and institutions with their religions at the expense of non Christians and would not insist on Christian nations. The reality is however, Christians and Muslims have demanded and imposed nations based on their religions. Now you would have us believe Jews do not have the same rights because they are a minority in Muslim or Christian nations. But the point is by starting their own country they then become a majority don't they and your arguement suddenly goes pffft because now you have to change the rules and say, uh yah, but its different. Christians can have nations. Muslims can have nations. But Jews can't. Why? Because we said so. Well sorry after 3,500 years of persecution in Europe and after centuries of dhimmitude in the Middle East, Jews realized they would not survive if they did not go back whence they came and take a final stand. It is illogical not to mention hipporcritical to suggest Muslims can have Islamic nations, Christians can have Christian nations, but Jews can not have a nation. Also please understand Israel is not just a reaction to the holocaust or a nationalist political concept. Zionism is not to be simply defined as political. Zionism is also religious. Jews UNLIKE Muslims or Christians, believe that they have a covenant with God and spiritually are connected to the land of Israel. It is not just a matter of politics for them, itis a matter of spiritual connection. The Muslim religion does not attach its existence to owning land. In fact in the Muslim psyche, the concept of borders is absurd and inan ideal world, since religion and state are not seperated, there would be no need for borders there would be just one massive Islamic nation that never ended. As for the Christian world, it has long dominated all of Europe, South and North America's government institutions and used the imposition of military force to impose its beliefs. It wasn't democratically elected-often it was imposed on the majority by a minority. Just like the West and its Christian traditions will not allow itself to be taken over by Muslims and just as the Muslims do not want to distinguish state from religion, and do not tolerate other religions, so do Jews want to have a state where their religion is never in question. I personally prefer to live in a democractic non religious country. I hate all organized religions equally for the same reasons but unlike you I do not selectively deem Muslims and Christians to have rights but Jews not to have rights. Either the entire world defines nations not on religion but democractic rights of equality and keeps religion seperated from the state, or it is what it is now, a mix of theocracies and alleged democracies-but this double standard that Jews are the only ethnic group in the world who can not be a majority in a nation makes non sense and is in fact merely a symptom of Islam and Christianity continuing to manifest intolerance towards Jews not just as a religious people, but as a political people, a cultural people and a people whose essence is linked to the land.

You have to be kidding. You don't know what a pubic man is. Let us start with you. Do you remember what you were like in the middle of puberty? Probably not. Let me remind you. You were a galoot, a spaz, a half man, half boy with arms and legs out of control and your frontal lobe expanding from the size of a small dot to a large grape-fruit. Yoru inhibitions, emotions, and temper were all over the place. You could get an erection at the slightest provocation. But oh I know you would have us believe you were an angel and never had an urge. Putting that idiocy aside, this has nothing to do with body size. This has to do with the physical difference in anatomy. Use your brain bobo. You think a woman of 180 pounds is built the same way a guy of 180 pounds is built. Let's try this for starters-womens' bodies contain much more water and less muscle content. Their pelvic girdles are shaped differently. In case you haven't noticed they have uteruses that under the same conditions of being wacked as a man's chest and pelvic area, may not necessarily be protected from serious damage. It is one thing for two large women to hit one another, its another for a man to do it. More to the point your arguement is absolutely stupid. If I take it to its logical conclusion what will you do. Define the leagues by weight and body size? This is not wrestling bo bo, its hockey. Its a team sport. In individual sports your arguement would of course prevail but not in organized team sports. Now if you need someone to explain to you why a small man getting hit by a bigger man is different then a woman being hit by a man bigger then her or even the same size perhaps you need to go to anatomy class. You live in a dream land pretending women and men are physically the same. You are mixing up your political ideology and belief that you are defending women's equality with a completely different concept and that is the physical difference in genders after puberty. More to the point, for you to even remotely suggest hockey should be made safer so as to allow people of different genders to play together after puberty is the icing on the cake. How about I explain it this way. Mats Sundin already plays like someone of the other gender. Oops that wasn't politically correct. I have coached women's soccer teams for years. There is a reason at 14 to 17 we seperate them from boys. The sexual tension would make it impossible for them to enjoy the sport if we didn't. You can pretend this is not the case, but that my friend is just a normal, natural fact. Maybe you were not attracted to girls during puberty but most guys are andfor you to pretend that isn't the case, is laughable. Natural sex urges at puberty are a fact for most humans.

The refusal of the Arab nations to accept the resolution that proposed a partioned state wasnt surprising. Having an European imposed settlement creating a state of people with European ancestory would be a complete return to colonialism. It was of course going to be unacceptable to the Arab nations. So yes they do desrve some of the blame for the state of the region today......but not all of it. Balfour Declaration: at the time only 10% of the area was in fact Jewish with 90% being indigenous palestinian. Why would they accept an agreement being put forth by an occupying power to take away land when they were the absolute majority? When the League of Nations gave the UK power to put forth the Balfour Declaration in 1922 the Palestinians, or any other Arab State, werent given any position to negoiate the settlement. With a history of having solutions imposed by occupying powers it isnt overly surprising they werent jumping at the UN's proposed partioning after ww2. To them this was just another time where the west was imposing its will over the region. Your views are respected and of course fair comment. What I would say is, that it is not accurate to define Jews as simply being of European ancestry. This is just not true. Ashkanazi Jews are Jews whose blood has been inter-bred, but its origins are not from Europe but the lost twelve tribes of Semites. Certainly Tsfardic Jews are clearly not of European origin and are African and Arab Jews or dark skinned Jews of different cultural tradition. It is a misnomer to define Jews as simply being European. This is a concept based on ignorance as to what the origins of Jews really are. It is the same ignorance that defines Zionism simply as a European colonialist notion. It is not just a nationalist ideology. It is a religious concept that flows directly from the Bible and the belief that Jews have a spiritual convenant from God to the land in Israel, and whether Jews travelled from the Middle East to Europe and settled there, does not change the fact that they are ancestors of aboriginal peoples of the Middle East. I understand however perfectly your point that to the Arab and Muslim world, the idea of a Jewish state would be seen as a threat from Europe. I think though it is also important to point out that while trendy left wingers like to say the Arab world deemed Israel a colonialist European imperialist imposition, this is precisely that, a trendy left wing invention. In the real world of Islam, its deeper then that. In the real Muslim world, dhimmitude prevails and that is a belief that neither Christians or Jews even if they were born in the Middle East and have continued roots there, are NOT entitled to any property rights or equal rights as Muslims. Its more complicated then just describing it as neo-colonialism because it has deep religious roots that create intolerance and discrimination that having nothing to do with the fact that Israel was created. The fact is Christians and Jews have lived in Palestine UNINTERUPTED since Biblical days but had their rights taken away by Romans, Greeks, Turks, etc. The Arab League chose to reject the UN partition plan because it was following its Muslim beliefs that neither Jews or Christians should be permitted to own land or be self-governing. This is a deeply entrenched religious belief that has not changed. European Christians who first felt guilty for the holocaust and felt Jews should be allowed to return to Israel, now are the same Christians who feel Jews are evil for having returned to Israel. The European Christian world has demonstrated a complete and total hippocracy towards the fact it created a holocaust and was responsible for over 3,500 years of persecution of Jews and refusing to allow Jews to own lands. In that regard the Muslims in the Muslim world are no different. No they did not engage in the same level of genocide, but they certainly practiced the same level of discrimination. Had the Arab League allowed the Jews a tiny country all of this would not be discussed. The other point I would like to make is that the legal rights Jews claim to Israel were not based on their population size at the time. That said you raise an obvious interesting point. For Israel a democractic state to remain Jewish by nature, its population would have to have its Jewish portion of that population out-number its Muslim or Christian populations. The current birth rate is something like 8 Muslim Israelis to one Jewish Israeli, so if we project that into the future, say to the year 2030, Jews could be a minority in Israel which of course would bring into question the idea it could remain democractic but Jewish. In the Muslim world they do not worry about such things because their policy of dhimmitude and killing off of or discriminating againstnon Muslims (Zoroastreans, Bahaiis,Jews, Christians,) makes it a moot point. Unlike Israel, no Muslim country allows non Muslims property ownership rights or even business ownership rights.Morrocco is the only Muslim country that has allowed a relatively tolerant level of cooperation with its Jews, and that is directly because of the traditions flowing from its King. It is an exception to the rule. Jews in Muslim countries can deal with one another or Christians but things get very complex when they want to deal outside their own communities which are in fact enforced ghettoes.