Rue

I agree with you Topaz. I would only add that I can't figure out the basis for the deep-seated hatred between Arabs and Israelis. To me, they are the same tribe. I know many Jews and Arabs and, being into anthropology, I can't help but notice numerous physical similarities. For instance, both seem to have curly hair more often than not, both have rather impressive noses, both have people whose eyes tend to bulge out, but to me, the piece-de-resistance is their language. Both languages are nasally-based, but certain words not only sound the same, but mean the same thing! Jews greet you with a hearty "Shalom", while an Arab-speaker will greet you with a "Salaam". To compare, the Cree greeting is "Tansi", while the Mohawk use "Sago"....and yet Canadians regard Native people in this country as being all one group! Given these similarities, one can argue that the Jews and Arabs were likely one Nation, and not too far in the distant past either if their languages are so strikingly similar. To see what I mean, take the opportunity to listen to Arabs and Jews converse among themselves...even some of the gestures both groups use when making a point bear a resemblence. fascinating if it wasn't so frightening.... I think you mean well in your comments but they are a tad simplistic. The fact is Jews and Arabs are both semites and bothdescended from Abraham. This dude Abraham had two sons. One son he sent out into the desert and the other he kept. See this dude Abraham's wife was having problems having children and God kept telling him he needed a son (at least so the Bible says). So Abe goes out and finds a Mistress and has a son. (yep in those days if your wife couldn't get pregnant that is what you did-what adultery you say...leave that for now) Then just as Abe thinks thinks are cool, his wife gets pregnant. So now he has a legitimate son but an illegitimate one too. So he sent his Mistress and bastard son out into the desert and yep you guessed it that son grows up and is the beginning of the people who end up as Muslims. So yep, Jews and Muslims come from Abraham and yes the semitic people are from the same "race" but I wouldn't go too far with the stereotyping of Jews and Arabs having big noses and black curly hair. Yes some do have big honking noses and sound nasal. Then again many do not. Its like saying all aboriginals look he same. Not quite. That said, the tribal war between Jews and Muslims and Christians in the Middle East flows from religious beliefs in all three religions that causes clashes and conflicts and competing land claims. The fact is if the descendants of the Middle East thought more on the lines of many aboriginal nations, i.e., that everyone shares the earth and does not own it, they might have had an easier time co-existing. That said, I do not know how this post ended up getting so nasty and how fat Jews from the suburbs got into this. I am a Jew and I am not fat yet but I am from the suburbs so I am getting a little paranoid! All kidding aside, can we just accept this simple fact-there is a festering, unresolved land claim between the native peoples and many provincial, federal and municipal governments. Its a legal issue. The current stalemate is not a matter of aboriginals being terrorists or current non natives being evil land owners either. It is a tragic result of history and past bargaining in bad faith. The fact is the current government has not taken any leadership in this current stalemate and is hoping by doing nothing the matter will go away it won't. Hell I am ready myself to serve as a mediator. Can't we just have the appropriate government representatives agree to sit down with the appropriate native leaders and mediate these land claims? What is the big deal? You ask me yes I understand the frustration of non natives who feel there is a double standard and that natives are allowed one set of laws and them another. You ask me yes I also understand that the native people have serious legal claims and therefore a long simmering basis for their utter frustration with trying to resolve certain land claims. Both sides have reasons for what they are doing. Aboriginals are not terrorists. They haven't hurt or killed anyone. Sure some of them are hot heads. But so are non natives at the scene. There is a lot of unecessary testosterone. What I say is I understand both sides need to talk and they need to talk now. And by the way, all anyone has to do is read some of the native responses on these posts to see where they are coming from? Does it sound terrorist to you? To me it sounds like people simply trying to explain history and unresolved problems...they don't sound like Hezbollah to me. They aint saying they will wipe you out and shoot missiles at you. They are simply stating talk to us as equals. What's the big deal? How does it harm any of us to admit some of the native writers to these posts no more about the history of Ontario then any of us...maybe its because they have the most to lose if they don't remember the past? Maybe because unlike us non natives, their very existence is tied to the soil and land rights they are talking about? That as a Jew I understand. That as a spiritual person I understand. Asking me for some respect isn't much to ask. A little respect will go along way.

So you want to know about Hezbollah... well here is a direct quote from its founding statement: "We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. ... Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine." Hezbollah began around 1982 when cells of anti-Israel terrorists formed together to fight Israel which was in South Lebanon trying to maintain a buffer through the South Lebanese (Christian) Army to keep terrorists from coming across into Northern Israel and to stop these terrorists from launching missles. It declared its official manifesto on Feb. 16, 1985. Its philosophy is clear. It follows the teachings of the late Ayatollah Ruholah Khomaeni and wants Lebanon to be a fundamentalist Shiite nation. For the record at this time, only the US, Canada, the UK, Holland and Israel have declared it a terrorist nation and for the record it receives its arms not just from Russia, China and North Korea its principal suppliers, but Germany, France, and Belgium. In the past Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have all made statements criticizing it. Its political wing has 23 members sitting in the Lebanese Parliament. And just so you know in addition to Al Nour Radio Station and Al Manar t,.v. which regularily broadcast its philosophy calling on the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews worldwide until this object is achieved it also is a lot of fun for boys and girls because it even distributes a video game called Special Force which teaches its kiddies about killing Israelis and civilians in war. It also funds the Martyrs Institute providing living and education expenses to families of those who blow themselves up. Its religious philosophy Willayat Al Faqih extolls the virtues of a one religion Shiite Islamic state with no freedom of speech or expression and the country run by a few clerics sitting on a council. Its current leader Sheikh Sayyed Nasrallah was never elected and came to power in 1992 after basically other leaders were assassinated. Yes he is a religious cleric. Now the interesting thing about the Reverend Nasrallah is that yesterday he declared victory and told all Lebanese he would rebuild Lebanon and that they won their war. Well that's nice. Here's the rub. Now that Israel is no longer bombing but has entrenched in the South and is g oing nowhere, in fact most Lebanese returning to their bombed homes realize Hezbollah was pushed out of the South and at what expense? Just what did Hezbollah achieve in its victory? Yes it managed in destroying the entire country but what about its claim to victory? Israel is not only still standing but it is right back in Lebanon instead of remaining outside it. So this man has succeeded in destroying his country and giving Israel pretense to remain in Lebanon at the moment. More importantly as the months grow to years, most Lebanese will ask themselves what did hezbollah achieve other then a demonstration of hatred and ego...yes in the heat of the moment everyone hates Israel but after Israel no longer shoots at them in because no missiles are going Israel's way....then what...well as the months turn into years, the Lebanese will turn on Hezbollah as they did in the past-they will begin to resent their presence and resent the fact that there latest conflict achieved nothing other then to incite Israel into killing civilians and destroying their buildings. So let's not kid ourselves. The current supporters of Hezbollah who are not Shiite will soon be back to questioning why it is so powerful in Lebanon. Now then who is kidding who. The UN will allegedly put a different kind of UNIFIL force in South Lebanon. Yah right. Who? The French? The French still have their reputation in the Arab world based on their behaviour in Algeria. They are destested by all Arabs except the Lebanese Christians. Rumour has it they will try have the Turks join them. Yah sure. The Ottoman Empire's boys, another popular army Arabs love. I mean Arabs love their memories of how Turks treated them in the Ottoman Empire. How about the Germans. Some idiots including the current PM of Israel actually think Germany should be in this peace force. Yep I can see that. Imagine what happens if a German soldier shoots an Israeli soldier. So who is left? True neutral countries that are trusted by Israel such as Canada, Norway and Spain or Holland may not be in the position to provide troops. Holland is already in Afghanistan with Canada. Spain and Norway are extremely reluctant to provide ground forces. So who is left? Uh yah, lets bring in the Chinese and North Koreans or Russians? Don't think so. So who is left? You ask me, the only armed force capable of keeping Hezbollah in check are the Ghurkas and they are not going anywhere near the Middle East. They had their escapade in Afghanistan for the British. So I think you will see a major problem assembling a UNIFIL force with clout. What will eventually happen is Hezbollah will try repopulate the South yet again with arms. The UN claims this time it will enforce Resolution 1559 and disarm Hezbollah...how? You really think Hezbollah will as the UN claims, disarm and stay in the North? Fat chance. The UN claims this time UNIFIL will have a military mandate and the UN will enforce a weapons embargo. Yah right. This coming from the French, the biggest weapons whores in the Middle East. The bottom line is to disarm Hezbollah one has to go to its source Iran and I say Iran not Syria. Syria is a bit player with no say in what is going on. It is a bankrupt country on the verge of a civil war. Iran is the power and no one has any influence over it. The Chinese, Russians, French, Germans and Belgians and European Union suck up to it for oil. Only the British, US and Australia have criticized it openly. So sorry but I think Hezbollah is going nowhere. It will continue to promulgate anti-semitism and instability as long as Iran continues as is with its mad-man leader. As long as Hezbollah retains its weapons and military presence, Lebanon has no chance of being an independent nation. Please let me leave with you with another love quote from "Happy" Hassan Nasrallah; "Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history ... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment." Yes indeedy. I am a large tumour. Isn't that special.

I am not comfortable blaimg terrorism on Islam, never have been, never will be. I think it is far too simplistic to simply state Islam encourages terrorism or cultivates it. No I think we Jews, Christians and people of other religious also went through a time or times when we interprated our religions in very fundamentalist terms. It was not too long ago alleged witches were being burned and aboriginals raped and force converted by good Christians. all religions in all societies have at any given time promulgated hatred, murder, etc. I do not doubt at the present time the vast majority of Muslim society is illiterate and therefore has not developed critical thought but I think this is a social and evolutionary fact not a religious cause. They are now at where Jews and Christians were at one point and hopefully are now evolving from. The point is it is humans, usually men, who interperate religion that cause the problem. It is their fundamentalist expression of religion into black and white rules, not the actual religion that causes the terror. I wonder, if Jesus was around today..doyou think he could identify with one word of what is being advocated as Christian by Christians today? I doubt Mohammed would have much to do with today's terrorists claiming to be Muslim and no as a Jew I do not believe as it says in Leviticus of stoning gays or adulterers, etc. and I have evolved past certain fundamentalist precepts other Jews still strongly believe in. No people should not be lumped into simplistic categories. I think there is a temptation to lump all of Islam and terrorism into one category particularly when we see Muslims in Canada at alleged peace rallies and then see young Muslims in head gear smiling as young men burn Israeli flags or cover their faces and wear Hezbolllah t-shirts. Its tempting but I think black-balling an entire religion or all Islamic peoples because of a vocal minority or because humans use it as a tool to justify terrorism is not intellectually honest and we need to stay rational and calm...this coming from a Jew who is very well aware that in the Muslim world, it is the norm for its religous leaders to preach anti-semitism and anti-Christian or anti-Hindu or anti-Bahaii, etc., doctrine. Yes terrorists like to say it is their belief in Islam that fuels their terrorism, and yes there are no shortage of facist intolerant Muslim clerics, but they are not true Muslims and I say that having watched someone yell out the name Allah and then ignite himmself in a crowd killing people. That man was a terrorist and an idiot not a Muslim and any Muslim cleric who preaches hatred is not a true Muslim. A true Muslim no matter how much he disagrees with me and as much as we have problems between us historically being Jewish and Muslim, etc., would consider himself my brother and Christians as brothers... and would not engage in terrorism. True Muslims do not use the Koran to engage in violence-the Koran is supposed to be a book of poetry extolling peace and tolerance. Yes its been hijacked by idiots but idiots come in all religions, colours, genders, sizes, etc. All religions are misused equally. I think if we are ever going to achieve peace with Muslims we are going to have to resist being afraid of them and trying to depict them all as violent killers. No I am not saying be naive...what I am saying is exercise tolerance, restraint and common sense.

The cold reality is that there may be a termporary lull but never an end to fighting. Israel is involved unfortunately in a cultural war that is far greater then just Israel but a very real cultural and religious war by fundamentalist Muslims against what they perceive as the corupt West. I guess the question is, what does anyone do to try cultivate an alternative to fundamentalist terrorism as a political option in the Middle East. Is it possible? I think the crux of the issue can be found in the fact that the majority of the Muslim world still does not read and write and depends on its religious clerical figures to tell it how to think. As long as the literacy rate remains low, freedom of thought just can not be cultivated and so we can't get to a level where we can convince people that there is something in between black and white. I think the pith and substance of the lack of moderation in the Middle East flows from the anthropological reality that Muslim society is still a good 200 years away from reaching critical thought on a wide spread basis. Moderate educated Muslims are still in the minority world wide and usually do not feel they are in the position to make much of a difference and certainly I know scores of Muslims who are moderate and on one level would be very candid and admit Israel should have the right to exist, but on another level would not dare say so publically for fear of the social stigma that is attached to being friendly or seen as being friendly with Israelis or any Jews.

Israel doesn't recognize Hizbullah either. But israel doesn't necessarily have to talk to Hizbullah, they can go straight to the nations that pull its strings. At some point, these parties are going to have to sit down and jaw. The alternative is worse. I think both of you and I and everyone else would agree it is highly unlikely Hezbollah will ever enagge in peaceful or diplomatic talks with Israel for the simplel reason they are not and do not claim to be seeking peace. They are at religious war with Israel and all Jews. The practical reality is they need to be permanently and physically seperated from Israel and not be placed in the physical position of being able to attack Israel or Jews world-wide. How you achieve that I do not know. Logic says you must disarm them but the reality is Hezbollah are heroes to the vast majority of Muslims in their world where anti-semitism and the destruction of Israel are wide spread popular doctrine. I am not sure how you go about getting enlightened moderate and modern Muslims to come to the forefront and transcend the fundamentalist muck and forge an economic alliance with moderate Israelis given this rampant anti-semetism and hatred for Israel. Unlike the PLO in the 60's and 70's that did have factions that were moderate and regularily communicated with the Israeli Defence Force and politicians, today's militants in Hamas and Hezbollah are not interested in dialogue. Even if you try prop up a guy like Abbas for the PLO he has no support from Hamas or Hezbollah. One thing should be made clear. Syria is completely and absolutely anti-Israel in every sense of the word. When it tries to pose as a broker or middle man between Hezbollah and the West that is a pure crock of sh..t. Its similiar to a tactic one sees when one travels to open bazarres in the Middle East. One person will own most of the stalls and hire vendors per each stall. When tourists come a young man will approach the tourists and say to the tourist if the tourist pays him, he will negotiate for him with all the stall keepers because he is friends with them all and can get them a good deal. Of course that young man owns every stall and hires all the vendors! It's an ancient tactic and anyone who understands the Middle East and its political shennanigans and plots doesn't take it too seriously. Syria posing as an honest broker trying to help achieve peace is like the Klu Klux Klan offering to help poor black people learn to read. More to the point, Syria has no control over Hezbollah. It has zero influence. It is in alliance with Hezbollah simply because they share the same enemy. Likewise the Sunnis and Druze and Christian Lebanese who now are angry at Israel for destroying their country and so side with Hezbollah, are simply allies at this point because of their common anger or hatred for Israel not because they are a true alliance. In the Middle East there are thousands of coalitions between enemies who become allies temporarily when it comes to dealing with Israel. Syria can barely prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking over its own country. The tiny tribe of Syrians now in control of the country are from a minority Muslim sect and its only a matter of time until Sunnis in Syria engage in open war with Shiites in that country and Assad's power clique and kill him. Syria is not and has never been the real power in the Middle East. It has always been Egypt and Iran. Egypt because of their population and shipping lanes, Iran because of their oil and strategic geographic position with China, Russia, Turkey, etc. Iran right now has no interest in peace with Israel and so its proxy army the Hezbollah will not go away. Iran is set on having Shiite Islam rule the Middle East and the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates although they would never admit it need Israel to exist to counter Iran's power. There is a tendency to think Israel is a proxy for the US and used to destabilize the Middle East for the US so the US can sell weapons for oil. That is a bit simplistic and there is some truth to it, but the fact is Israel serves not just as an ally for US interests, but for Turkish, Russian, Egyptian, Saudi Arabian and UAE interests. It is the only counter-balancing act to Iran these days. Egypt is on the brink of becoming an extremist fundamentalist Sunni Muslim regime if the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in killing Mubarak. Its highly doubtful a large, populous poor country like Egypt which is principally Sunni could ever co-exist with Iran and that is precisely why Egypt has stayed out of a war with Israel. It needs Israel to keep Iran in check. Even countries like France, China and Russia who sell Iran weapons to get favour, secretly need Israel to be strong. So what does this all mean? To get Hezbollah to back off, countries like China, Iran and France, its three biggest military and financial supporters need to stop pretending to be neutral in this matter and get off their two-faced butts and put pressure on Iran to cool it. If Iran cools it, Hezbollah is controlled. It is that simple and yet that tricky. Iran right now is an out of control wild card with a lunatic leader and a lunatic fringe in control of a large nation that is economically bankrupt and has some very educated, pro-Western citizens who feel powerless to stop the fundamentalism in their midst. I still feel economic trade is the best way to defeat a country not weapons and the US should concentrate on rebuilding Lebanon and using MacDonalds and Coke not weapons to gain influence. You want to conquer your enemy? Flood them with MacDonalds, coke, Nike, etc. It worked in East Europe. It seems to have done something in South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. I am not saying their quality of life is better but I am saying these three countries do not engage in wars with the US at the moment. One has to wonder, if Americans, Russians, French, Chinese were not so friggin short-sighted, they would do more then simply prop up corupted oil regime Sheiks, they would try flood these oil rich Middle East countries with materialism to get the average Arab hooked on useless materialistic garbage and control their spiritualism with cynical good old fashioned coke and burgers, etc. All that aside, if this proposed UNIFIL force unlike the old one has a military mandate and if in fact the UN actually does prevent weapons from getting into Lebanon, peace could be possible. The reality is however, as long as Hezbollah remains armed and propped by Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, nothing will change. The key to peace in the Middle East is preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and at this point I personally feel there are just too many corupt sob's who make money getting weapons to the terrorists to ever stop that from happening.

Here is an example of a man who has been working for Hezbollah doctoring images. He's known to many of us who have followed Hezbollah since its creation and he's typical of the propaganda arm of most terrorist cells who use people who are trained journalists and understand the media to use disasters to manipulate the press. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAKc5CLgc

What is the difference between the stereotype you posted above and a stereotype that says all Natives are lazy drunks? Both stereotypes are wrong and encourage people to view others based on their race and not their worth as indiviuduals.Let me put it simply: any statement that goes something like "natives are ..." or "white people are.." is a racist statement even if that statement is intended to be positive. If you want to live in a society without racism you have to learn to stop using racism whenever it is convenient for you. And yes, I am picking on you everytime you make a racist statement on this forum because I am tired of racists like you running around and pretending that you are not racist. I don't really care if you are willing to listen to me or not because I know that others will read your insulting replies and will recogonize that I have a point - even if you insist on living in denial. Your comments are logical. For me I see this as an ancient problem that was allowed to fester and the current stalemate is simply a symptom or flair up of an ailment that is deeply entrenched and won't go away. Here is my problem. I truly believe the current federal and provincial governments did not negotiate in good faith in the bast with the 6 N people. I say that simply in a very sterile, unemotional legal sense looking at how treaties were broken and/or how promises and undertakings were pledged but then never followed through. I also know personally of one provincial civil servant who prided himself on how during negotiations he could mislead natives using double talk civil service language. That said, I think the current stalemate can not end until everyone sits down at a table. Negotiations can't be done as long as there is an occupation and people breaking the law, no matter how well intentioned these law breakers may be. I personally believe the provincial government based on its guilt for past bad negotiations or the ignorant behaviour of some bafoon like Mike Harris, is now paralyzed with fear and has not shown leadership for fear it will be seen as just another Mike Harris regime. This current government is paralyzed by its fear of optics and that is wrong. Had this current government said, look there are serious issues, we can and will sit and discuss them but take down the barriers, I think you would have had a different response. Part of what is prolonging this is because natives have no confidence. in any one at this pt. They feel they literally have nothing to lose and quite frankly the way this government is behaving how does it inspire leadership simply hiding? I mean is it any wonder that gutless OPP Police Chief ran off? Does anyone have the balls to say to the native peoples look we will talk just step down.

Black Dog's last two posts finally say something cohesive and logical and make a valid point for me anyways that the conssequence of this counter-offensive will be to strengthen and popularize Hebollah in the entire Arab world and yes it does necessarily hurt and maim and injure innocent civilians. All points that have to be considered and in the long run will force Israel whether it likes it or not to seek a treaty. The problem though is Israel is very well aware of the points Black Dog and its own military have made to that same effect and debate evrey day. For them they see a short term consequence. They genuinely feel a 1,500 civilian deaths is less then if they allow Hezbollah to remain. The point is its a no win for Israel. Hezbollah is well trained in ground war. They also have missiles that easily penetrate Israeli tanks and have hand held missiles that can easily take down their Cobra helicopters. At best Israel can create a buffer zone or demilitarized zone until neutral troops step in. My point from day one has been had the UN taken awayHezbollah's weapons as they said they would, Israel would never have gone into Lebanon because Lebanon would have been a logical economic partner, There is also no doubt in my mind if Hezbollah and other militant groups had stuck to words and not violence, Lebanon would be a thriving economic centre. Rather then being short-sighted and trying to kill and wipe out Israeli Jews, if Hezbollah and militants had any sense they would have done what the Japanese and Vietnamese done with their enemies-embrace them and use them to build viable economies. Nothing achieves peace faster than free trade. The tragedy now is Lebanon is destroyed, millions of its civilians are shell-shocked and millions of Jews also shell-shocked and the cycle of hatred is entrenched into another generation. Surely we all agree we need to end the terrorism so that rational humans can talk and find peaceful solutions to co-exist. Now I will say this-when I read about this or any other conflict I notice one thing- the weapons being used are supplied by the Chinese, Russians, French and Americans, and to a lesser extent Belgium, the UK, North Korea and former Warsaw pact nations. The governments of these nations are well aware of this arms trade through third party brokers. I ask you, if there was some way we could stop weapons from being sold by anyone or at least seriously curtail it, how could terrorism flourish? What an irony the 5 security council members are also the largest military manufacturers of the world and directly make money off of this war and every other war and conflict. These conflict zones become large tests to see if military products work. I know its wishful thinking but imagine if there was a UN strong enough to prevent weapons from getting into the hands of conflict zones. With no weapons people are forced to talk.

For goodness sake it was a little tirade... nothing more. It's not like he stood on a pulpit (or soapbox) and spouted hatred. How many people actually heard what he said? A couple of police officers and a passerby or two maybe. Much worse has been said by much better people (I never liked him much anyway -- far too religious for my taste). So anyone who says negative things about muslims are "twisted and asking for help" or "not getting the answers they want from their own *insert group name here* group", or "Obviously something deep inside them is not working." or perhaps they are "sick and deliberately did this as a cry for help". Come on... it was a little tirade and people want to send him to the nuthouse because he "needs help". Sheesh. Sounds like 1984 don't it? See that is the difference between you and I. In my world when people get drunk not once, but on many instances, and lose control, I think it is a sign something is wrong. From the sound of your response, you feel it is just a little joke. Do me a favour, the next time you are drunk and start popping off at the mouth about anyone, don't drive and don't be suprised if you get a fat lip.

Could you link to the post? I remember that and I believe, in the context of the thread, I was suggesting Israel negotiate with Lebanon and Syria to resolve the Sheeba Farms dispute, which I believe would undermine Hizbullah. Outside of that context, the quote makes no sense: after all, how could negotiations with Hizbullah undermine Hizbullah? Yup. I'm trying to take a broad and dispassionate view of the whole conflict, its causes and effects without getting into any emotional rhethoric about good guys and bad guys. I wish others could do the same. I've repeatedly referred to Hizbullah attacks on civilian areas as war crimes. What more do you want? And I've never heard of Samir Kuntar before you brought it up above, so I'm not sure how its relevant. Sorry but I find it hard to believe that someone who has taken such care to be unemotional and unbias and and remain totally neutral and accurate never hear of Mr.Kuntar especially since your posts perport to claim you know all about Hezbollah. Sorry I am not buying it. Others can.

How many other ficticious smoke plumes have we seen? How many other flares have been copied? We must know the truth! Why the double standard Black Dog. What gives you the divine and self-righteous presence to roll your eyes and belittle people but run to the moderator anytime someone says something sarcastic your direction? Which one is it. Do me a favour, before you roll your eyes, look in the mirror. You are not witty, funny, and no you do not have a monopoly on truth and so can openly engage on these posts as if you are in the know and everyone else is not. The point is the photoes were doctored as were many others in the past and as many others will be in the future. That was the point before you decided to use it as an opportunity to be arrogant. And I say that rolling my eyes o.k.?

Whoops. Correct. I was thinking of the Druze. According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis. That's not my quote. For you. See also: "irony". "Israel-baiting"? That's a new one. And I think for a citizen of Haifa, the pre July 2006 situation was far more convienient than the current daily rocket attacks. Try to grab some perspective instead of getting all emotionally overwrought. Evidently I need to get you the definition of "analogy" as well. The point is Hizbullah, while a sophisticated organization, does not threaten the existence of Israel. Nobody (even, I'll wager, Hizbullah's leadership) believes that. Simply stating and restating that it does is not evidence. Unless you think Israel is so weak that a few hundred primitive rockets will cause everyone there to pack it up. Who said they were? The better alternative wold be no violence at all, but we're comparing the pre July 2006 situation with all that has transpired since. Saying I'd rather lose a finger than my whole hand doesn't mean I want to lose the finger. A few points: Kuntar (whom I'd never heard of until yesterday) was not a member of Hizbullah, though they have taken up his cause. Second, by the accounts I've read, your dramatic depiction of the events leading up to Kuntar's capture are wrong: Danny Haran was killed first, shot by his captors as Israeli security forces closed. Einat Haran was killed with a blow to the head after that. Link. Finally: what's your point? the crime Kuntar committed was horrible, but I'm sure there's millions of similar tales throughout the region. Again: grab some perspective. That wasn't one of my posts either. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it meaningless. Of course there are alternatives to violence. As I said above, we're talking about two specific alternatives: the status quo ante bellum, which was a limited, local conflict along the border, or the current mess. Once again: when addressing me, try to limit your reponses to statements I actually made. You're actually replying to (and disparaging) a pro-Israel poster. Did I blame Israel for leaving? No, I blame Israel for withdrawing unilaterally and thus enabling Hamas and Hizbullah. Instead of working with the Lebanese government (at the time a Syrian puppet, so I acknowledge there would be serious difficulties there) or the P.A. pre Hamas, to establish some kind of orderly transition of authority, they just up and bugged out. This is the geopolitical equivilant of leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in the worst part of town and then getting upset when it gets nicked. Obviously, the ultimate responsibility lies with the thief, but the car owner bears some of that burden as well. This would be obvious to anyone interested in a serious discussion and not mere emotional tirades. *edited to add* Of course no discussion of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza can be complete without this money interview with Dov Weisglass, who was senior advisor to the not-yet-late Ariel Sharon during the Gaza withdrawl. Link I apologize for assigning a quote to Black Dog if it was not his. I lost track of who was saying what. I do wish to make one point crystal clear. Black Dog is being absolutely unreasonable if he thinks it is ironic, or witty or laughable, or funny or sardonic or any other word he wants to use to dismiss terrorist attacks on Israelis as a joke and an inconvenience or to even dare suggest it is preferable to have cross border attacks to missile attacks. This is precisely the kind of comments I expect from someone who lives far away from death and destruction and so thinks it is some sort of game. Perhaps if Blag Dog bothered to educate himself as to who Mr. Kuntar was rather then make idiotic statements that cross border attacks are preferable to missile attacks, he would not take the name of innocent victims in vain and you bet I take what he says with disgust and contempt. To talk about cross border terror attacks as if it is inconsequential is the utmost in ignorance. If I did this in reverse and talked about Lebanese this way and said the missiles do not threaten them and are a mere inconvenience Black Dog would be the first to complain to the moderator and everyone else about what a racist I was. That is the point. Now you want to make a point that Israel's counter-atacks have gone too far then fine complete the analysis. How far is too far? Yes it is easy to say, they should not have done ANYTHING in response that could have harmed civilians and yes we can be completely misleading like Black Dog and suggest Israel is the cause of all problems including creating terrorism when they choose to leave after being attacked-so what is the alternative? I have yet to see the authority on the Middle East Mr. Black Dog or any other dettractor of Israel, suggest what the alternative is. All I have read in the last few weeks from Black Dog and some others is that Israel is wrong, dead wrong. But no analysis is spent on explaining how terrorism has affected Israelis and how it threatens their daily lives and has led to deaths and countless suffering. That is conveniently sluffed over in an effort to try paint this conflict as black and white with a good guy and a bad guy. The point is Hezbollah is not an innocent, freedom fighting force, and now Black Dog's attempts to engage in what I consider pathetic propaganda and suggest because Lebanese are desperately fed up with being bombed to smithereens that this somehow makes Hezbollah morally acceptable. It does not and the fact is of course Lebanese civilians at this point would consider Israel the enemy more then they would Hezbollah..but that does not change the equation. The equation still remains had Hezbollah not taken the country hostage and engaged in peaceful negotiations with Israel, none of this would have happened-none of it-it is a direct consequence of choosing terrorism over peaceful negotiations-it is a direct consequence of choosing to vote in to office people known to engage in terrorism. Lebanese people doomed themselves and their country when they elected to office 23 Hezbollah members who openly stated they believed in the destruction of the state of Israel and would not stop until this complete destruction was achieved. This is the crux of the issue. If we in Canada voted into Parliament a party and members of that party that openly advocated using terrorism to achieve independence for Quebec and and that party openly enagged in attacks of terrorism against Canadian civilians, how do you think Canada would react? How would Canada also react if the U.S. sided with these terrorists and then the UN and the US lectured Canada and told it these terrorist attacks were just a minor inconvenience and its all their fault because they had no business taking land away from these Quebecers and illegally occupying their country. The point is, Black Dog and some other posters have chosen to isolate this conflict and simplify it as a simple bad guy attacking a good guy without taking the time to even find out who Mr. Kuntar was or what Hezbollah has done leading up to this present conflict. If Black Dog actually read about Hezbollah and how it has treated its OWN people he would realize in the Middle East the fact that the Lebanese want Israel to stop and detest it for what it is doing, does NOT mean it agrees with Hezbollah and believes in terrorism. What it means is at this moment in time, the enemy of their immediate tormentor is their ally. Anyone who bothers to take the time to analyze the Middle East in proper context would know, if Israel was not engaged in war with Hezbollah, Lebanese eventually would have turned on Hezbollah as they did with Syria. There is a war going on not just between Israel and Hezbollah as Black Dog would so simply like to define it, but between Muslim fundemantalism as aspoused by Shiites and Muslim beliefs as aspoused by Modern Muslims or more Orthodox Sunni Muslims and by Muslims of other sects not to mention Druze and Christians. This conflict pre-existed Israel and was going to continue whether Israel existed or not. The fact is to try portray Lebanon as a unified nation because at the present moment its civilians are under attack from Israeli missiles is obvious but it does not for a second change the equation and that is, that Hezbollah is a terrorist group and it chose to use the country as a terrorist base and the people of Lebanon and their government did not disarm them. The choice to allow terrorists to flourish and be elected to office has reprecussions no matter how you want to spin it and scapegoat Israel.

I will respond to Black Dog's latest comments. " Eh. No. See here's how it is: Lebanese society is fracticious: 40 per cent Shiite, around 30 per cent Christian, 25 per cent Sunni and various others (ie Maronites) thrown in. None of these groups have gotten along particularily well and there is plenty of lingering hostility from the civil war. However: Israel has managed to proved al these groups wih a common nemesis and Hizbullah has rather skillfully cast itself as a Lebanese nationalist organization. But there's a world of difference between tacitly or even vocally siding with Hizbullah and "harboring terrorists." Big time difference. " Maronites are in fact Christians. They are not two distinct groups. Black Dog's comments that Israel has provided them all with a common nemesis, namely Israel is defective. The fact is whether Israel engaged in its counter-strike or not, the majority of the country was being held hostage by the Surians, Iranians and their proxy terrorist force, Hezbollah. That is the point. If Black Dog chooses to make Israel a scape-goat for what ails Lebanon he should be reminded not all Lebanese think like him so he should not project his simplistic scaep-goating concepts on Lebanese many of who are sophisticated enough to know who their real enemies are. "Huh? What were those rockets stockpiled for? Israel has always been in danger, this is merely confronting the inevitable." In a previous response Black Dog stated Hezbollah posed no existential threat to Israel, now he says they have always been in danger. Which one is it? As well what does "merely confronting the inevitable" mean? How does one "merely" confront the inevitable. See its these kind of statements that make me wonder, what is Black Dog really trying to say? I would suggest he is inferring that there is no point in Israel defending itself..so this either means they all do what? Collectively commit suicide? Move to Mel Gubson's house? What exactly? "Obviously, Israel is going to use this as a springboard for its conquest of the entire Middle East. After all, what is that huge army for? " This is precisely the kind of baseless, sweeping generalization that has to be called out and exposed. On what basis is this conspiracy to take over the Middle East obvious? What magic powers does Black Dog have that can see through this elaborate pretense of Israel pretending to defend itself? A" After all what is the guge army for? Roll Eyes" . Does this sound like someone who is interested in trying to understand Israel's position or does it sound like someone who has closed his mind and is simply interested in calling names? Israel maintains a "alrge enemy" because it is surrounded by regimes and terrorist groups who have clearly stated it is their intention to destroy it. For Black Dog to suggest Israel only keeps a military force because this is attached to a conspiracy to take over the Middle East is past the point of absurdity. If it was Israel's intention to capture all of the Middle East, why hasn't it already? The point is the above comment is not even absurd it is churlish and tries to pretend Israel is under no threat and does not need any armed forces to protect its existence. "Why is it so hard for people to make the distinction between threatening lives and threateing the state? Saying Hizbullah's border raids threatened Israel is like saying the Hell's Angels operatrions threaten Canada's existence. I'm sure there's thousands of Israelis in bomb shelters across the north who happily return to the good old days of cross border raids." Again this is the kind of iresponsible and churlish response that needs to be called out and exposed for what it is-Israeli baiting. To down-play and attempt to rationalize or intellectualzie terrorist attacks and depict them as a minor inconvenience is an insult to anyone who ahs ever suffered or will suffer from terrorist attacks. Comparing Hell's Angels to Hezbollah is absolutely idiotic. Hell's angels is a criminal organization with no political ideology. Hezbollah's criminal activities such as drug smuggling, engaging in the capture and trade of women and humans as slaves and prostitutes, stealing and selling stolen goods, engaging in charity and white collar crime, or only part of its motus opperendi. Engaging in violence and murder as a means to express its poltiical ideology is what sets it apart from Hell's angels. More to the point if Hell's Angels got to the point where it would be a significant existential threat to Canadian or American society because of wide spread missile attacks, you can bet its leaders and members would be hunted down and killed or incarcerated. I also wish to make one thing clear. Black Dog may think he is being clever or witty but it is absolutely disdparaging and belittling to Israels to suggest they would love to return to the good old days of border raids. Again this is precisely the kind of response that should earn readers' contempt. Israelis are not playing a game. Cross border raids are not a joke or minor inconvenience. Stop and think what Black Dog ridicules and refers to like it is a joke. Samir Kuntar comes across the border and takes a 4 year old boy and bashes his head in with a brick while his father is forced to watch. The brain matter is then shoved in his father Danny's face. Danny is then slowly tortured and killed. danny's wife and daughter had to hide in a loft. She smothered her 2 year old daughter to death covering her mouth so she would not scream. Mr. Kuntar is now referred to by Hezbollah as a hero and martyr and this is the man Hezbollah commenced this latest conflict over and want released. This is what Black Dog talks about like it is some sort of joke or minonr inconvenience. He should be ashamed of himself and apologize for his comment. "Acceptable? Why yes, if having your citizens targeted continually by terrorists is in any way considered a normal way of life." Again this is a pointless and inane comment. Terrorism has become culturally acceptable as a means of expressing political views in the Middle East as has anti-semitism. That is the point. "Normal is relative. Not for us Canadians, obviously, but I think it's a predictable state of affairs when your dealing with a territorial/border dispute between belligerent parties. It was acceptable in the sense that the price paid in the status quo is far les sthen the price of the alternative chosen." The above comment is an example of someone who is talking for the sake of talking. Its meaningless. It misses the very point of the discussion and that is, that there is always an alternative to violence when expressing political views or when trying to resolve conflicts. Tjhe above is simply hot air and again tries to indirectly infer terrorism is justifiable. "our political solution I don't believe has ever been considered by anybody other than Israeli people. For example, land returened used to launch attacks from etc." Again the above comment engages in a gross generalization speaking on behalf of the entire world other then Israeli people. What makes this response odious and less then geuine is that Israelis continually explore and consider the possibility of options for peaceful solutions without the use of their army. What Black Dog deliberately ignores is that the vast majority of Israelis want peace and would embrace peace but their vast and extensive network of peacemakers now all are in unamimous agreement with their government that they can't achieve peace with Hezbollah who have made it clear they will murder each and every Jew on the planet. That is the facts. Hezbollah is not just about having a minor disagreement with Israel. They are about exterminating all of Israel and all Jews whether they are Israeli or not. That is precisely defined in their charter and statements. "Irael has never "returned" land. Abandoned, yes. "Returned" implies some kind of prearranged transition or handover. That's not happened." Again the above comment is completely false and an example of someone trying to engage in semantics to conveniently ignore the truth and that is Israel invaded South Lebanon to protect itself from terrorist attacks, gave it back, only to watch as the UN failed to disarm Hezbollah in the South, and did nothing just as the Lebanese government did nothing as Hezbollah with the full support of Iran, Syria and military brokers from France. China, Korea, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Britain, the U.S. and Russia sold weapons including missiles, drones, bombs, and countless body launched missiles and grenades and transported them through the infrastrusrure of Lebanon and assumed since Hezbollah set up its offices in schools, hosptials or in residential apartment buildings or next to UN observer posts, they could never be attacked and could launch continuous attacks without impunity and when it felt like kidnap soldiers or kill civilians not just in Israel but in Lebanon. "Israel bears a measure of responsibility for the vacumn that ensued which allowed Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza the opportunity to consolodate themselves in territory unilaterally vacated by Israel." Now the above is the most amusing and typical statements of Bl;ack Dog. he spends most of his time attacking Israel for "occupying" territory that does not belong to them, and then when they leave, he then blames them for leaving! If it wasn't so absurd it would be laughable but to me it typifies how Black Dog contradicts himself and at any opportunity blames Israel. Toa ssign culpability to Israel for terrorists choosing to take over Lebanon or the Gaza is past the point of being silly but I suppose if we take Black Dog's approach as evidenced above you simply blame anything and everything on Israel and do not worry about whether that makes any cohesive logical sense or has any context.

Or, an even better solution. Have the IDF assist the peaceful Lebanese government in removing Hezbollah from their country, without bombing apartment complexes and destroying all the bridges and roadways in the country. How is the Lebanese Army supposed to move about to destroy Hezbollah with no roads, no airports, no bridges? Israel is destroying the very means for Lebanon to deal with a problem it initally didn't even have the power to fight. Are you serious? Do you read? The Lebanese Army supports Hezbollah. The Lebanese government supports Hezbollah. The Lebanese Army and government fully accepted and supported Hezbollah remaining as a military terrorist force in its South. Some would say it had no choice. Some would say with 70,000 troops and 60% of the population not agreeing with Hezbollah it had a moral choice but abandoned its sovereignty due to a whole myriad of reasons including Syrian and Iranian pressure and internal coruption. Whatever the case may be part of this very problem is caused by the Lebanese army and government supporting Hezbollah so your comment that the Lebanese army can't move about to destroy Hezbollah is embarassing and shows your complete lack of awareness as to what is going on. More to the point if there ar eno roads or airports, Hezbollah's supply lines are cut off. That is the point. In war, to defeat your enemy the first thing you do is cut their supply lines. Nothing complex about that concept but if your supply lines are also the same supply lines that equip civilians and you choose to use civilian routes with the full permission and authority of its government for terrorist activities, that is where you have the problem.

Why is it you present only one side of the equation. If you want to discuss this conflict honestly you must also refer to the fact that Hezbollah kills innocent civilians and that the reason the civilians are killed is because Hezbollah has made the moral decision to use civilians as shields. It is in effect wrong to argue it is immoral for Israel todefend itself. That is not logical. A country and its civilians can morally defend themselves from imminent peril. What you are trying to argue defectively is that when Israel defends itself it should not kill civilians. No it should not. No one would argue killing civilians is desireable. What you have completely ignored which is usually the case when people like you write in and present it as a one way moral dilemma is that Israel did not place the civilians in harm's way, Hezbollah did and so if we are to engage in proper philosophical context, the moral culpability lies on Hezbollah not Israel. Now the moment you can show how Israel can defend itself without killing civilians who Hezbollah hides behind please let us all know. In your brilliant analysis you seem to suggest that Israel should do nothing.

When I was in Israel as a student studying politics one summer, I was paid $5.00 per hour to do the writing and research of articles for journalists who would sit at the bar at the King David hotel and never move from their seats and spend most of their time drunk. We all know then what you know now. That wire stories are worthless. Reuter and AP are two blatantly anti-Israel wire services. One thing that amused me was that a friend of mine (n ot Jewish, Greek) who was a free-lance film-maker and photographer took pictures of an apartment that was taken down in Lebanon in the early 60's. Those pictures resurfaced 15 years later and passed off as pictures from the Lebanese civilian war. Nothing suprises me. I also was directly involved in an incident which I witnessed where the PLO staged photoes. As wel if you knew anything about how Israel's media works, you would know they do not hesitate unlike in the Muslim world to lambaste their government and military.

Black Dog has responded by making a statement that it is a myth to suggest that the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah threaten Israel's existence. It is statements like that-these simplistic, sweeping, subjective statements that absolutely floor me. I say this because at this point I find it hard to believe Black Dog has not read the constitutions of Hamas or Hezbollah or is unaware that both terrorist cells have made it clear their agenda is to kill Jews world-wide and kill as many Jews as possible in Israel as well as anyone else in Israel, until Israel as a nation ceases to exist. That is the point. Hezbollah and Hamas clearly and explicitly have stated and defined as their very purpose that they are in existence to kill each and every single Israeli Jew unless they leave the Middle East. The rocket attacks into Israel, the repeated continuous attacks on civilians as well as this stated belief, are blatantly an existential threat to Israel. I would love to have Black Dog explain how shooting missiles into unarmed civilian centres is not an existential threat. I would love for Black Dog to explain how kidnapping innocent civilians and torturing and killing them is not an existential threat. I want to know how stating and I quote; " we will not stop until each and every Jew is removed" which is a direct quote from Hezbollah's leader, is not an existential threat. Such sweeping statements are past the point of absurd. In my opinion they are deliberately provocative and this is precisely why I criticize Black Dog. In my opinion they infer that Hezbollah and Hamas are not a threat to anyone and that the missile attacks and suffering from previous terrorist actions can be written off and dismissed as inconsequential. No Israel does not have the option to negotiate with someone who says it will kill them the moment it gets a chance. No one in that position has an option and that is precisely why it is important neutral third parties step in and when I say neutral I do not mean a UN force that assists Hezbollah by looking the other way while it remains militarized and uses the South of Lebanon as a terrorist launching pad or is able to engage in war tactics that deliberately use UN posts and civilians as shields to hide behind.

"Why don't they place them say in New York State". Comments such as the above again manifest how when people talk about Israel, they find it easy to make disparaging sweeping statements against all Jews and state thinks they know are provocative and nonsensical but clearly manifest ignorance and hatred towards a people and perpetuate a myth that New York is of course full of Jews. New York is full of lots of people the last time I looked.

Wrong again Rue. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206514,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/01/...main/index.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5236834.stm http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/...in1853364.shtml The Bekaa Valley is not in the south. There are troops in the area. Israel has widened their attack strategy. When will you say that enough is enough? When Hezbollah is gone? At the same time devestating Lebanon? I cannot see this working. Lebanon is getting pounded from the ground/air from the south and the navy is lobbing stuff from the west. I am not wrong and you should carefully read what they were doing before you suggest troops have landed. In fact there was a limited commando attack -that is NOT TROOPS LANDING. More to the point Israel will attack where-ever Hezbollah operates. That is the point. If you want to know the difference between a strategic commando attack and troops landing perhaps you should read more carefully.

"And just what is Dr. Rue's diagnosis based on?" The above is a direct quote of Black Dog's. It necessarily calls on me to defend my qualifications and turned this series of posts into a personal attack on me which called for my responses. If Black Dog does not want me to bring up my credentials he should not initiate such dialogue by making such comments which are clearly personal and sarcastic. That said my diagnosis is based on the same thing Black Dog's positions are based on.

Um...you realize that if Israel stays there, Hizbullah will continue to attack and will continue to claim legitimacy for those attacks. If Israel chose to negotiate a settlement, it would undermine Hizbullah's claim that it is fighting for Lebanon (quote from Black Dog) Black Dog in response to my posts asked where he stated that he said Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah so I have reproduced the above which is a direct quote from him. Black Dog also claims he is not supporting Hezbollah in his responses and I am engaging in dualism when I suggest that. I will let posters decide what impression they get from Black Dog's responses as to Israel and Hezbollah in this conflict. My impression is that he is supporting Hezbollah and feels their tactics and approach to the conflict is justified. I regret any misunderstanding I may have. I have as of yet seen a post from Black Dog discussing anything critical of Hezbollah or an explanation why he thinks Israel should release Mr. Kuntar. Perhaps he can point out his responses. Maybe I missed them.

I've seen the Passion of Christ and no, I didn't see it as anti-Jew. But reading this allegations about his anti-semitism....IF Mel Gibson thinks reminding Christians that Jews killed Christ, and therefore should be hated....I'm not buying that (even though I liked most of his movies). Christians should be reminded that Jesus was a Jew. Btw, from what I've read somewhere...his dad was an anti-semite. Even published newsletters. I truly believe Mel Gibson absolutely believes in the traditional passion play he depicted in his movie and can not in his mind understand its corelation to anti-semitism. That said, I believe his comments about Jews when he was drunk should be no suprise to anyone. He is the son of an extreme racist and bigot who preaches hatred against Jews and so he has probably been exposed to it since he was a pup. I also believe he is sick and deliberately did this as a cry for help. He is self-destructing. Yes he should be taken to task for it, but I think when people do this kind of stuff we need to help them and try have them learn from their mistakes and forgive them if possible. The irony is Mel Gibson like a lot of anti-semites has jewish friends and is probably very loyal to his Jewiosh friends. That is entirely possible. Sometimes we attack that which we think we hate but secretly inside we think may help us. I personally think that is what he is doing-in his own twisted way asking for help and I personally think he attacked Jews because I am not sure he is getting the answers he wants from his own Christian group. Obviously something deep inside him is not working.

Thank you for your kind words and believe it or not, I am not 100% in agreement with what Israel has done or does either. If it means anything to you, Israel may be unanimous in believing it must defend itself, but it spends considerable time debating the appropriate response and has always wrestled with what to do.

Could you clarify? Getting what they deserved as in: What kind of bass-ackwards thinking put's one religous group smack dab in the middle of another religion's holiest land? And the resulting violence since then is justified? ??????? Why the displaced Jewish people after WWII couldn't have been given a chunk of land anywhere else, is a very good question? oh and I don't subcribe to the "It's their holy land" argument. Plenty of Jewish peole are worshipping just fine all over the world. Interesting how Besty asks a question about anti-semitism, and you launch into an attack on Israel. Once again we see a classic example of how the two always seem to be used inter-changeably. That said, your comments about "what kin dof bass-ackwards thinking put's one religious groupsmackl in the middle of another religion's holiest land?" is meant to mean what? Your comments seem to suggest "Jews" should not have "placed" their country in another religious country. See it is precisely that kind of simplistic, black and white comment that makes me wonder, why? Why do you not before you make such comments, try learn the origins of Judaism and its relation to its connection to Israel and then examine the Muslim religion and its concept when it comes to land? If you bothered you wouldn't ask such questions and you wouldn't try simplify the conflict in such a simplistic manner. For the record, long before your analysis and the creation of the State of Israel in 1949, there was this place called Egypt and it had slaves. These slaves led by a guy called Moses, led them on a revolt and then out and to the land that is now referred to as Israel. This guy Moses, (oh yes its true, I watched it on t.v. with Charelton Heston) went up into the mountains and came down with these ten commandments and started a religion where he told people they shouldn't kill each other, commit incest, adultery etc. Yah call him a stickler for rules. In any event as part of this relgion he told the slaves that GOD promised these slaves that they could live in Israel. So in this religion is the precept that GOD promised the land to the Jews and so they have a spiritual link to it. Their very existence is dependent on being connected to that soil. When the Jews got there m there were Phillistines and Cannanites, and some other assorted tribes but these tribes would not have been Muslim or Arab. Follow me so far? The Jews fought many people and settled there. They lived there. People came people went for centuries. Then this guy called Abraham has two children....two sons. See Abe's first wife had problems having a child so Abe gets a mistress and has a son out of wedlock because he's convinced God wants him to have a son. Then after he has his bastard child, his wife is pregnant. So guess what? He sends his bastard son off into the desert with that son's mother and that son sent off into the desert is the origins of the people who become Muslims. So when the Muslims develop and begin their religion, Jews have been in Israel for quite some time and guess what these people called Christians as well. The Romans, Greeks, Turks, come into Israel but guess what, Jews still continue to live there even though many are displaced and move into the rest of the Muslim world or Europe. For your information, in the Muslim conception of the universe, state and religion are not seperate so this notion they have a country in Palestine is pure and utter b.s. Palestine is a no man's land with no soevriegn state-it is a territory administered by Romans, Greeks, Turks, then British. The notion of Jews creating a soveriegn state for Jews in Palestine comes from three sources; i-the Bible and their belief of being spiritually connected to the soil, ii-the fact that Jews are native to this land and have always been native to this land; iii-that as a result of 3,500 years of continuous persecution in Europe and living as second class citizens in a system called dhimmitude in the Muslim world, they wanted to live free from other people's persecution. The British suggest the Jews in Palestine be given a small enclave and the Arabs in Palestine given a small enclave. For the British, this would mean two people who both feel they have rights to the land continously at each other's throats and then of course needing the British to rule them. Ah divide and conquer, works every time. Meanwhile next door, France conveniently creates countries like Syria and Lebanon while Britain slices up countries into neat little boxes like Iraq and Jordan. When Israel is ready to accept its tiny little enclave, the Arab League tells the United Nations and Britain to stuff it and attacks with the express purpose of killing and/or expelling all the Jews. The problem is those Jews just don't die and they fight and in 1949 Israel declares itself a nation,. Its border establoished in 1949 is what is called a defacto border. It was defined by war not by treaty. de facto borders become considered legal if there is a considerable period of time in which they are not challenged. The point is those 1949 borders were always challenged by the Arab League and to this day the majority of the Arab League is still in the state of War with Israel since 1949. Egypt is the only country that has officially engaged in a peace treaty. The West Bank which was seized by Jordan in 1949 but technically that West Bank like all of Palestine was never really defined. Now all this talk of Israel illegally settling or deciding to settle in a Muslim country is pure p.s. Palestine was never a country, it was an undefined land. To this day these pre-1967 Israel borders talked about were never ever recognized by the Arab world and still are not. They are referred to by Arab countries as where Israel should pull back to, but in the same breath these same Arab countries when they tell the Western world Israel should go back to those broders, tell their citizens through their media, that they want all Jews gone. To date no Arab country with the exception of Egypt has ever put in writing, that it defends Israel's right to exist. So Israel is not some isolated incident and the idea of some unreaosnable Jews who deliberately set out to aggravate Muslims. It is quite frankly a return of aboriginal peoples to where they came from. And for you to ask why don't they go some where else, reflects your complete and utter ignorance of why they would go back to this tiny piece of sand. They go back because it is tied to their spiritual destiny. Yes they also go back because the holocaust required systemic and extensive networks of rail-road trains and collaboration of many Europeans and for them after World War Two, remaining in Europe was not an option. For you as a Christian who takes it for granted your country is Christian and the religion and institutions reflect that bias, you can not understand what it means not to be allowed to own land, or engage in certain professions or businesses or to constantly live with people slaughtering you every Christmas and Easter. You don't understand what it is like to listen as every year you are told you are responsible for the murder of Christ and until you convert to Christianity, you deserve everything you get. You do not understand what it is like to live in a Muslim country and be told you muststay in a ghetto and not interact with Muslims and listen as Mullahs and Muftis state that the Koran says that Jews are liars and infidels and made up false stories and that Islam is the only true story. Now I doubt you have read a word I have said, but once and for all, I am so tired of people asking questions reflecting a complete lack of ignorance of why Jews are in Israel and since you won't bother to read up on it, maybe my writing it in these simple terms will help you. And try understand this...for Muslims they see their world flowing from Morrocco to Pakistan and on and on. They don't think of borders. This is a Western concept imported by the French and British to carve out areas of economic influence. True Muslims see themselves as simply united and these borders are absurdities. That is why they have a major problem with Israel. It is to them simply something sliced out of their kingdom and they feel Jews are only there because of something that happened in Europe which is not their responsibility. However that is not entirely accurate because these same Muslims do not want Christians, Hindus, Bahaiis, Zoroastrians and many other religions in their midst either. Today's Muslim countries are not exactly abouyt living in tolerance. When they are not at war with non Muslims they are at war with each other's different sects.