no, the palestinians were itching for a fight on this one.

sadly the israelis fell for it in the same old way.

they need some new material over there to get out of the rut.

She sounds almost proud of these terrorists. I wonder how long till she picks up a gun and joins them?

starts at 14:30 or so

Adrienne's expression is easily identifiable as that of a self-loving morally narcissistic moonbat set upon mischief.

Palestinians really LOVE their children - especially when the tykes are dressed in martyr's robes with those cute fake bombs strapped on (and not always fakem, either).

CBC == al-Reuters Canada

Arsenine is no better than the regulars for al-Reuters who film the guys in action.

I was flipping back and forth between CBC and CTV news last night, and it was interesting to note that CTV led with the North Korean missle story, while CBC led with forest fire, then went to a story about a heavy rain storm in Ottawa, then to the war memorial pissing story, then to a new case of mad cow disease, and then, and then, after the commercial break (the lead in to commercial was about some strange geographical formations at the bottom of a BC lake) they finally got around to the missle test.

Who is in charge of prioritizing news stories at the mother corp anyway???

Karl, you should know better than to question the grand old Mother Corp!

They know what we want to hear about and especially how Canadians think. (re: social issues)

Don't they?

I saw that piece last night, and it was framed as a “starving-in-Africa” humanitarian disaster for the “innocent” Pals, with Mommy Arse-And-All in there with them feeling their pain.

Has CBC mentioned this?

Children are used as "human shields" by the terrorists of Gaza/West Bank. Meanwhile, the Hamas leaders, burrow deeper into their rat-holes. ...-

Hamas Leaders Cower

Hamas leaders cower and hide.

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Hiding in friends’ houses with their mobile phones switched off, Palestinian prime minister Ismail Haniya and his ministers are behaving more like an underground organisation than an elected government.

Imagine that. In a sane world, that’s exactly what they would be. ... via LGF ... more

Charles Krauthammer insists that we Remember What Happened Here.

What is so remarkable about the current wave of violence in Gaza is that the event at the origin of the “cycle” is not at all historical, but very contemporary. The event is not buried in the mists of history. It occurred less than one year ago. Before the eyes of the whole world, Israel left Gaza. Every Jew, every soldier, every military installation, every remnant of Israeli occupation was uprooted and taken away.

How do the Palestinians respond? What have they done with Gaza, the first Palestinian territory in history to be independent, something neither the Ottomans nor the British nor the Egyptians nor the Jordanians, all of whom ruled Palestinians before the Israelis, ever permitted? On the very day of Israel’s final pullout, the Palestinians began firing rockets out of Gaza into Israeli towns on the other side of the border. And remember: those are attacks not on settlers but on civilians in Israel proper, the pre-1967 Israel that the international community recognizes as legitimately part of sovereign Israel, a member state of the U.N. A thousand rockets have fallen since.

For what possible reason? Before the withdrawal, attacks across the border could have been rationalized with the usual Palestinian mantra of occupation, settlements and so on. But what can one say after the withdrawal? ???

Well, at the risk of being a 'flame-thrower', I'll say that it isn't as simple as you guys are defining the situation: Israel=The Good Guys and Palestine=The Bad Guys. That only happens in one of my favorite type of movie- the simple Die Hard type where it is, indeed, all very black and white.

Israel insists on Palestine recognizing it. Fine. Fatah did that long ago, but, like our very own Liberal Party, like the UN, like so much, Fatah became extremely, deeply corrupt. Hamas, which didn't recognize Israel, had moved into the welfare gap left by the corrupt Fatah, which was primarily interested in enriching its elite - and was looking after many of the social services unmet by Fatah. So, the Palestinians voted for Hamas. Because of that.

Now - Israel has a role in this whole scenario. It isn't a hapless helpless innocent. First, it should and this should have happened long ago, recognize a Palestinian state. It has never, ever, done that. The Oslo Accords did not recognize a Palestinian state. No. They were only about municipal style self-gov't, dealing only with local issues of culture, education, health. Nothing about borders, resources, defense. All, all, of that was left within Israeli control. Some state.

So, Israel should recognize that Palestinians do exist; the land wasn't empty back in 1946 but was filled with farmers who actually had legal title to their property and who fled. Israel should recognize that these Palestinians exist, they aren't going to be absorbed by Jordan or Egypt who have openly refused to absorb them.

Acknowledge that they have a right to land and an economy. Stop the occuptation of the land allotted to them. Stop settling that land with those huge, irrigated, defended settlements. Give it back to them.
And then, deal with some monetary compensation for the 'right of return'.

So, if Israel would only recognize the Palestinians have a right to a state, would cease the occupation, stop settling that Palestinian state - then, then, I think there would be a very strong chance for peace. It is an error, I consider, to merge the islamic fascist agenda of Al Qaeda with the Palestinian-Israel situation. The two have nothing to do with each other. Al Qaeda and the ME mov't out of tribalism wasn't a factor in 1946, but Israel-Palestine was.

How can a people, deprived of any economy, any land base, any self-gov't, react to this occupation and deprivation, except by illogic, by emotion, by hatred? What do you expect? Love?

Israel's agenda now,is to destroy the elected gov't of the Palestinians - Hamas, by insisting that it is and can only be, terrorist and that it can't make the change from terrorism to political governance. [Heck, Israel's major presidents were originally part of their own terrorist mov't, and were able to move out of that mode and into a political mode.]

Without a gov't, without an economy, what's left for the Palestinians? They are locked into hatred and revenge, which has become their sole reason for life. Do you seriously think this is genetic? No. No, it's isn't islamofascism; it isn't a fight to return to tribalism. It's about being occupied, deprived of an economy, of self-gov't, of educational progress, of hope, for a whole generation. That does something to the psyche.

ET,

You're a bleeding heart. Sounds like apologism to me. The Palestinians have blown every opportunity they've had to settle this. Their response time after time has been more terror. Their declared intention is the destruction of the Israel. Their every action confirms this.

But maybe you're inadvertently onto something. Israel should recognize the Palistinian state. Then the next time a missile or suicide bomber is used against Israel they can take it as an implicit declaration of war. Israel can then declare war in return and drive the Palestinians into the sea. Problem solved.

Actually, jr, I don't consider myself a 'bleeding heart' or apologist. I'm neutral, and looking at the situation, I hope, from both sides. Most people seem to take one or the other side. I hope I'm not.

But I wonder what you would do, if your lands and home had been taken from you, with no compensation and you had been told to get out, simply because Another People were now moving in. How would you feel about the loss of your farm, your income, your home? Without compensation?

Then, you are informed by the UN, that part of the territory would be your state, and part would be the state of The Other People. But, this doesn't happen. Not only are you not compensated for your lost farm and house, but, you are not allowed to return to it. And, Israel moves in an occupies the total area that was supposed to be for Your State. Occupies it, and you are a secondary citizen, without rights, without land, in camps.

Then, their citizens start to move in and settle this land that was supposed to be for your state. Settle it, irrigate it - you are denied water for irrigation, you are told you may only use water for limited personal use, but not for farming. So, they build settlements on your new land, use the water to irrigate it, and, you are kept out. Not allowed in. Your peasant olive farms nearby are bulldozed for these settlements. No compensation.
If you have a peasant farm, you'll find that the settlers will go out in the night and cut down your trees, destroy your harvest, shoot at you if you walk to those fields.

What can you do?
Why the occupation? Why not give the land back, not settle it, and permit a Palestinian state?? That's what I don't get. Why won't Israel acknowledge Palestinians? Instead, they try all kinds of verbiage semantics to 'prove' there's no such people as Palestinians. That's like saying that it's not raining during a thunderstorm. Words can't deny reality.

They inform the Palestinians to 'go home to Jordan or Egypt. But, their home is, for centuries, in Palestine. And, Jordan and Egypt refuse to take them.
So- what should you do?

Why, rather than occupy the lands, settle them with illegal settlements, why doesn't Israel simply say - 'ah to heck with it, we'll take over the land completely. No occupation. All people living in Gaza and the West Bank are citizens of Israel.
You know that they will never, ever, do that. Because that would end the Jewish majority in Israel.

So- you can't be a citizen of Israel because you are the wrong religion. You can't be a citizen of Palestine because Israel refuses to recognize such a state. You can't leave because Jordan, Egypt etc, don't want you. You've lost everything, with no compensation for farms, houses, property. How would you feel?

Wouldn't you be, just a tad, just a bit, angry? And then, the world gets all huffy because you explode in anger? What do they expect after a generation of such treatment? Love?

Again, if Israel would only recognize that Palestinians aren't fictions, they are real people, and require their own state. A real state. End the occupation, end the settlements and give Palestine the West Bank and Gaze, and some compensation for their property. Then, sit back, and watch them build their own state. At the moment, they have nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except hate. What do you expect? How would you behave in such a situation?

ET

In order to recognise a "palestinian" (whatever that means) state, the Israelis will have to declare the borders of that state. You leftists think the state will consist of Pre-1967 Gaza and the West Bank, which I might add, were "occupied" by the Egyptians and Jordanians respectively. You might want to check out the conditions of THOSE occupations, before you slam Israel so hard.

The future was always the "palestinians'" to screw up. Note that under the terms of the 1967 ceasefire (the Arabs refused to sign a peace treaty at the time) the Pre-1967 borders were RECOGNISED by the UN to be INDEFENSIBLE, given the Arabs' penchant for genocidal anti-Jewish warfare. (The fact the Arabs lost was not Israel's fault).

Under the terms of the ceasefire, the Jews got to stay in Gaza, Sinai, and the West Bank, ostensibly until the Arab states could get around to making peace with Israel.

When that happened (after yet another Arab sneak attack on Israel, a colossal war crime of biblical proportions) in which Syrian officers ordered the murder of Israeli POW's because "the Geneva Convention does not apply to Jews", the Arab states of Egypt, and ultimately Jordan made that peace with Israel. Syria is still at war with Israel, by the way, so Israel is legally entitled to invade at any time, under International Law.

The holdover was Gaza (the Egyptians had seen what the Gazans had become, and wanted nothing to do with it) and the West Bank. Ironically if the Arabs had not invaded in 73, Gaza and the West Bank would probably be Egyptian / Jordanian respectively by now. So much for your "palestinian" state.

But, the 1967 borders have again been shown (by the '73 war)to be indefensible, and in any case the UN itself has recognised the right of some Israelis to settle the West Bank. Not all settlements have to be torn down, you know.

Nowadays with the alost daily barrage of Qassams, even the Gaza strip and West Bank itself may have to be demilitarised, in order for "palestinians" to be a state. I'm not convinced the palestinians want a state nearly as much as they want to kill Jews.

Anyhow, Israel cannot simply declare a palestinian state in Pre-1967 Egypt and Jordan, since in any case, the palestinians would never accept whatever borders the Israelis declare anyway. The palestinians want it all.

Prior to the founding of modern Israel, Palestine was not an internationally recognized country. It had none of the cultural markers, such as a flag, an anthem, history, art, etc. However, prior to 1946, there were some Muslims, Jews and Christians living in this squalid waste land obviously. Since then, most of the so-called Palestinians came from surrounding Arab/Muslim countries.

This isn't to say that they shouldn't have their own country - but it shouldn't be based on this idea that they were there first and so therefore deserve it.

Wasn't the word Palestine coined by the British and derived from the word Philistine - an ancient culture that existed in the same general area?

Hey ET

Why not pressure Jordan and Egypt to take them in? I mean, how hard can it be?

As to why the Israelis need defensible borders (more than the palestinians need a state) witness the daily Holocaust denial and genocidal rhetoric coming outta places like Iran...

Palestinians are despised in every Arab country the live in. In Saudi Arabia & Kuwait they are the considered no better than thieves and in Jordan they are kept under heavy police watch because they are malcontentents who want to topple the Hashemite throne. The Syrians despise them.

Palestinians need to wake up and get with the program - they have no rights to any Israeli land and the intifada is a dead end street.

ET,
You are correct in much that you assert about injustice done. However, the whole "how would you feel...?" line of aergument is unhelpful. I could just as easily launch into a similar argument on the other side. There was much Palestinian persecution of Jews prior to the formation of the State of Israel by the UN. Often, the same people who sold Jewish settlers worthless swampland would try to drive them off it once they had turned it into a functioning farm. From the earliest days of the state of Israel it has been the official and stated intent of the variou Palestinian political and militant organizations to drive the Jews into the sea. They have never recognized Israel's right to exist, and have waged a more or less constant war against them. How how would you feel if an group of people was always targeting your public transit, your bars and restaurants, your other public areas for attack? How would you feel if they assasinated your Olympic athletes? Hijacked your planes? And vowed to continue until you were utterly defeated? Would you willingly let them form a state? An economy? An Army? Would you not do everything you could to keep them back on their heels?

So you see, if one is going to go down this road, there is plenty of fodder for both sides. This is a classic "race to the bottom", and neither side has much to be proud of.

Having said all of that however, if I had to choose the values of one society or the other, I would choose Israel with their lack of honour killings, suicide bombers, and people dancing in the streets when skyscrapers are destroyed any day of the week. No one but them can stop that bull**it for them. And no amount of injustice suffered can justify perpetuating it, and especially exaserbating it just at the point that cooler heads are beginning to prevail.

There is a similar wrong-headedness on the other side, especially among militant Jewish settlers. Both sides must find a way to marginalize their radical elements if they ever hope to resolve this thing.

no, bcf, I disagree with you. I'm, by the way, not a 'leftist'.

Yes, I think that the Palestinian state should be the West Bank and Gaza and I don't agree with your supposition that they might be Egyptian/Jordanian by now.

"The Arab's penchant for genocidal anti-Jewish warfare'? Please explain.

I wonder how you would behave after a generation of occuption. It does something to the viewpoint, don't you think?

How do you know that the Palestinians 'want it all'? From what I read, Abbas and others, are quite clear on accepting Israel's existence, and wanting the West Bank and Gaza. That's what they say. Perhaps you choose not to believe them.

irwin daisy, prior to the founding of Canada, it didn't have a flag or anthem. Just like Palestine didn't. Neither did the USA. Neither did any country, come to think of it.
No, the ME is not a 'squalid waste land'.

No, there weren't 'some' Muslims, Jews and Christians'; there were several hundred thousand,about 700,000, small-scale farmers, primarily, most of them Palestinian. It was actually called British Palestine.

I fully agree with you; the legality of a nation shouldn't be based on 'we were there first'. After all, the Israelis were not first in the area, and their claims to the land because they were there 1,500 years ago, and 'god gave it' are not legal claims, but emotional and mythic. The ME, as I'm sure you know, is one of the most ancient in the world's history, and was filled with migrant settlements. And after all, if we used that criteria of 'we were there first', then, we shouldn't be here in Canada, as a nation and as citizens of Canada.

bcf - Jordan and Egypt refuse to 'absorb' the Palestinians. And after all, why should they?

Fred, your comment is so disgusting it doesn't merit a reply.

Irwin Daisy,

I read somewhere that the word "Palestine" was coined by the Romans after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as a way of showing contempt for the defeated Judeans (Jews).

Bear with me now as I will probably get some of this wrong. Working from memory is a dangerous thing.

Prior to the current situation, Palestine was under British and French control. For a long time before that (pre WW1) part of the Turkish Ottaman Empire. Some time before that, Saladin (an Egyptian I think). Before that European Crusaders (for well over a century if I am not mistaken). Before that, Arabs. Before that, Byzantium. Before that, the Romans. Before that,the Jews (under Judah Macabees). Before that, the Greeks. Before that, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, North Kingdom Israelites, Judeans, Philitines, Israelites, and Cannanites.

Whose land is it again? If you look at the history of it, the Jews have been there longer than the Palestinians.

Palestinians voted for suffering by electing those who want to inflict it on others. A thousand rockets have been fired on Israel since they left the Palestinians to govern themselves.

So if it's suffering Palestinians want, that's what they should get, but much more than they bargained for. Eventually they'll realize that their dreams of pushing the Jews into the sea is simply not going to happen. Masochists deserve no mercy.

ET, on this topic you are most certainly not "neutral"

There already is a "Palestinian" country.

Its name is Jordan.

Read up on how Trans-Jordan was carved off the Palestine mandate. (book title - Paris 1919)

I had a post less than two weeks ago that pointed this out.

Compare the sizes of Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

It's an outrage to suggest that Israel be sliced down even further.

ET,

Perhaps I missed it. Can you tell me where the Palestinians have ever explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist?

karl- you don't 'allot' land on the basis of who has been there longer. In all of America and Africa, that would mean the indigeneous peoples. We may be doing that in Caledonia, but, that's not a 'just and fair' action.

You have to acknowledge reality. The Palestinian people were there, in the land, for centuries, farming that land. You can't just, one day, say 'OK, get out, there's Another People coming in'. You have to work from present day reality. Not some mythic tale of god giving you, or him, or whoever, the land. Not some equally mythic historic pre-literate memory of having 'been there'. Not some early literate Herodatus style account of 'being there'.

You have to work from present day reality. At the time, in 1948, the Palestinians were there, governed by the British mandate over Palestine. Several hundred thousand, with legal title to their farms and houses. If you, the UN, 'decide' to change this land base, then, you can't pretend the land is empty, even if you wish it were. You have to, realistically and morally, acknowledge reality. People were, in the hundreds of thousands, living there, and had been living there, for centuries.

So, my point is that Israel should recognize this. It never has; it has tried to pretend 'the land was vacant'. No, it wasn't; read the early writings of Ben Gurion and others, about 'how to get them out'. So, my point is that Israel should recognize that Palestinians exist; they lived there. Compensate them for the loss of their farms and homes. We all know that Israel doesn't want them to come back, for that would mean a loss of the Jewish majority. That's the reason why Israel won't incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel - the loss of the Jewish majority. Or, instilling apartheid.

So, acknowledge them, acknowledge a Palestinian state, as Fatah has acknowledged an Israel state. End the occupation. Remove the settlements. And, leave them to develop their economy. At the moment, the Palestinians have nothing. Nothing. No economy. No land, no governance, no ability to develop that land, no water rights, no ability to irrigate land. Nothing. Why are you surprised at the anger?

philanthropist- your remarks are too superficial and ignorant to merit comment. The Palestinians voted for Hamas because they rejected the corruption of Fatah.

Robert,

It is true that Jordan was the Arab country that was created out of the ruins of the Ottaman Empire by the British and the French. However, to be fair, this did not address the question of individual Arab farmers (Palestinians) on the west side of the Jordan who did not live in the West Bank or Gaza.

It seems to me that their rights as individuals need to be taken into account. But so to do Israeli security concerns. People think of Israel as paranoid. But as the old saying goes "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that everyone's not out to get you."

ET,

Who said I am surprised at the anger? You are assuming things my friend.

Nor do I assume that land is alotted on the basis of who has been there the longest. But I can see why you might think I think that, given the fact that I said
"The Jewish people were there, in the land, for centuries, farming that land. You can't just, one day, say 'OK, get out, there's another people coming in'."
Oh, wait a minute, that was you that said that, not me, and you were talking about the Palestinians' "we were here most recently first first" argument. My mistake. It is tempting to say that the Palestinians have to stop carping about the past, and work from the present day reality. But that would be unkind. ;)

Seriously though, I am not meaning to say you don't make a lot of good points, because you do. Nor am I suggesting that Israel has got it all right, because quite clearly they do not. There are people on both sides of the questions who have spoken of driving the other group out, once and for all. And there have also been cooler heads on both sides. But to compare the best of one with the worst of another is unfair.

For the record, there have also been Jews in the region for centuries. And many of the small displaced farmers from 1900 or so until 1948 were displaced not because Jewish immigrants took their land by force, as the pro-Palestinian mythology implies. Often it was the case that their Palestinian and Turkish landlords sold the land out from under them. If I am not mistaken, no Palestinian land was taken by force by the Jews until they were attacked by the various Arab nations.

I might be wrong about this, because as I said, memory is a dangerous thing.

BTW, when did Fatah explicitly (that is, in writing) acknowledge Israel's right to exist?

You realize that those people who come to SDA for an argument are going to be terribly disappointed that a debate has broken out ;-)

I don't know the answer to this problem, it's not my field, it's a terrible mess, and there are lots of considerations on both sides. (And, for the record, ET is not a lefty.)

But if it was an engineering problem, I'd move Israel to Saskatchewan. Problem solved ;-)

ET,
Did a quick google and came up with this:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1150803722286B253

I remember something about Hamas winning an election recently. It seems there is still some sand in the vaseline on the Palestinian side.

Great. A war torn state with terrible roads and an NDP government. Just shoot me now. :)

ET:

An interesting analysis of the situation...not your usual "black or white" assessment. Notice however, that the moment you try to explain things as being not black or white, you get labeled a leftist.

Cheers.

Oops, better change my plan. I didn't know Saskatechwan is a war-torn state.

No, Israel would provide the war torn state. Saskatchewan the bad roads and NDP government.

The calculus is very simple:

Israelies love life and want to share it. That makes them good guys. The fact they have to defend themselves from psychotic killers in their homeland of 2,000 years doesn't make them bad.

Palestinians say they crave death and promise to spread it around, and they do so every day. That makes them bad guys. The fact they were kicked out of their neighbouring homelands doesn't confer victim status on them; it should make us wonder why they were expelled by their own people.

Gaza is a nation of Bernardos, male and female.
Oh -- and of course, like everyone above, no way am I biased here, except in favour of life. I'm just looking at the "facts." From the middle ground. Mr. Even Steven, that's me.

karl- the palestinians explicity recognized Israel's right to exist by signing the Oslo Accords in 1993 and Abbas has been making public speeches about this for the last few weeks. I assume you are aware of those speeches.

Israel, however, has never, ever, recognized a Palestinian state. I really don't know what they expect.
And to whoever said that Jordan is the Palestinian state - no, it isn't. Karl answered that, I think.

Yes, there were always Jews in the area, but, so what? There were also Christians. I think at the turn of the century, there were about 50,000 Jews in a population of about 500,000. My point is - what do you do with these, by now, 500,000 and more Palestinians who were there in 1948?

As for the displacement of the Palestinians, whether by force or not, the debate rages, with denials and affirmations on both sides. I won't get into it. My point simply is - you can't move into a territory, say it is yours, and insist that whoever is living there has no 'right' to be there and that you own the land, long ago, and it is yours now. Shades of Caledonia, isn't it?

So, you must acknowledge reality. Reality is that Israel exists, by virtue of a UN declaration of 1948. Another reality is that it doesn't want a non-Jewish majority; therefore, it doesn't want the Palestinians as citizens. Then, or now. So- what do you do?

The Palestinians existed, about 5-700,000 of them. Some pretend they didn't. Some insist that Jordan and or Egypt should absorb them. People aren't bits of sludge to be sponged up; they had been living there for centuries; they had land and homes.

So, end the occupation. Israel, as I said, obviously won't incorporate the West Bank and Gaza because it doesn't want those people as citizens. End the occupation. Get the settlers and tanks out. Give them financial compensation. And then, watch them develop their own homeland and economy.

But, to continue to occupy them, to deny them any chance of an economy, to make them vilified and penniless, will only result in their hatred of you. What do you expect?

Thank you, vitruvius, for acknowledging that I am not a leftist. Eeeek! Me? A lefty??? The ultimate insult.

So what?
CBC radio had a top story about the evils of Israeli sonic booms...

Interesting discussion, but, it does not detract from the fact that the C.B.C. has once again taken sides in an international issue and shown themselves to be willing to support the deaths of many jewish people. I don't really know how they can sleep at night when they support the killing of innocent people. They just do. They are very clever spinsters.

ET,

It has been a long time since 1993, and much has happened since then, so no, I confess that I did not remember the substance of the accord. But a quick google turned this up:

"The 11th round of talks opened in Oslo, Norway with Israel's announcement of an agreement on Palestinian self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. Just a week later, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Israeli government agreed to recognize each other after 45 years of conflict. The full series of agreements become known as the Oslo Accord."

So, it seems there was some recogniotion of Palestinian autonomy by Israel. I also remember some settlements being taken down. I also remember the intafata, which many say are a result of the Oslo accords.

My point is simply that things have broken down since 1993. Partly I suspect because regardless of what the PLO of Fatah says, Hamas does not agree. I also remember that in 93 Arafat was accused of signing peace accords with one hand while building suicide vests with the other.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. Give them their state. But let it be known that another attack from them means that all bets are off.

Shades of Caledonia indeed. Whose side are you taking on that one?

Israel accepted the UN partition plan creating a tiny Jewish nation in the -homeland- of the Jews.

Their occupancy of their homeland never, ever expired. A fact that many overlook.

The reaction of the Arabs......oh yes, they invaded, "Drive the Jews into the sea"

When it comes to the point of.....

"It seems to me that their rights as individuals need to be taken into account."

....it's up to the Arab nations who invaded to do the compensating.

"Sorry old fellow, turns out we didn't drive the Jews into the sea, here's some money to start someplace new, as a matter of fact come settle down in our country, it's the least we can do......"

The fact that no one cared about the "poor oppressed Palestinians" while Egypt and Jordan had control of Gaza and the West Bank speaks volumes.

It seems quite odd that Israel is punished for surviving annihilation. What an odd moral compass people bring to this topic.

(hmmm, Oslo accords 1993, I wonder what recent "Palestinian" text books says about the "existance" of Israel?)

BTW ET, I meant to accuse you of splitting hairs when you said "Israel, however, has never, ever, recognized a Palestinian state." Thoughtless of me. Sorry bout that.

The fact is (since you are so big on the facts) that there has never been a Palestinian state to recognize. Nevertheless, Israel did recognize the Palestinian authority as a political entity. You seem unwilling to give them credit for this. I am sure you will agree that Israel has no right to create a Palestinian state. They at least went through the UN to get their state carved out of a former British protectorate, which was ceded to them by the Turks after WW1.

It is not as simple as you want it to be I'm afraid.

ET - "Give them financial compensation. And then, watch them develop their own homeland and economy."

How many billions have the UN, EU and the US poured into "Palestine" over the last 30 years? I would think that even you would acknowledge that most money that goes into "Palestine" ends up in some corrupt officials coffers.

ET's arguments are those of Chomsky, Said, Fisk, etc.

The Arabs of the British Mandate for Palestine have a state - it is Jordan. The Arabs west of the Jordan did not accept partition in 1947 and the Jews did. The Arabs of the British Mandate for Palestine could have had a second state when the UN offered partition of lands west of the Jordan river in 1947. They could be celebrating the 59th year of their statehood, like Israel.

Before 1967, the only people who called themselves Palestinians were Jews - witness the Palestinian Post (today's Jerusalem Post), the Palestinian Philharmonic orchestra (today's Israeli Philharmonic orchestra)

or watch the movie Exodus
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/e/exodus-script-transcript-paul-newman.html

In the movie "Exodus," the female lead character asks Paul Newman at dinner where he comes from.
Paul Newman answers, "I don't come from anywhere. I'm a sabra. A native-born Palestinian."

All through the movie (made in 1960), they refer to Jews from the land of Israel as "Palestinians."
Some samples:
"Ben Ami is one of the Palestinians who run this camp." (On Cyprus.)
"He's the Palestinian commander, that's who." (Referring to a Jewish commander in the same camp.)
"I want to see the Palestinian camp commander."
"This is the Palestinian commander, David Ben Ami."
"Would you order him to place all his Palestinian...administrative personnel at my disposal while loading?"
"Report at once to your nearest Palestinian guard point." (Referring to a Jewish guard point.)
"This chap Ben Canaan probably wasn't lying when he said he fought with us. Thousands of Palestinians did." (Jews from the Palestine Mandate fought for Britain in WWII. The Arabs did not.)

"Any girl that falls in love with a Palestinian boy has a long wait coming." (referring to Jews)

Even Hollywood knew in 1960 that "Palestinians" were Jews. The Arabs in the movie were called "Arabs."
They'd never admit it now, of course.

Israel is on the fore-front of the war on terrorism and islamofascism. There is no difference between Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood (Arafat was a member of Muslim brotherhood), Al Queda, Hisbollah etc.

It's June 2009, ET got what he wanted, Isreal has given the palestinians, their own country.
...But the missiles are still falling....
..........Now what???...........

Boycott Israel, Canadian Chapter, now consists of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the United Church of Canada (UCC), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Choose your side.

Meanwhile, the "dogs of war" are baying at the leash. Woe to Gaza. ...-

Large IDF force prepared to capture deep swath of northern Gaza
Ha'aretz - 45 minutes ago
By Yuval Azoulay and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents. The Israel Defense Forces shelled the northern Gaza beach shortly after midnight Thursday, Palestinian witnesses said, wounding eight officers of the Palestinian coastal police, four seriously. ... google news

Thank you ex-Liberal for the needed reminder on how "Palestinian" has been subverted.

Yes folks, as hard as it is to beleive, they already is an Arab country created from the Palestine mandate and they would have been a second if not for that....what was it? oh yes, invasion.

Israeli territory now represents 17.41% of a Israel/Jordan/Gaza/West Bank grouping.

When you match Israeli territory against all Arabs lands, that would drop to what .1%

Egypt at 1 million sq. km. plus, Saudi at 1/5 of the US.

More: From LGF, word of a "mysterious" explosion. Yes, very mysterious...-

And a car full of Al Jazeera reporters mysteriously explodes:

Conflicting reports gave different causes to an explosion that struck a car carrying reporters from the Al-Jazeera satellite TV channel on Wednesday night in Beit Lahiya.

According to witnesses, there were apparently some injuries, and ambulances were on the way to the scene.

The IDF had no immediate comment, except to point out that it was uncertain what caused the explosion

ET wrote:
"Fred, your comment is so disgusting it doesn't merit a reply". If that's in response to the statement that the Jordanians watch them, that's correct....(you may have heard of Black September when King Hussein evicted the Palis).

As to the other remark regarding the Palis being disliked/mistrusted in other Arab countries....Gee....I'm afraid that's true too. Thing is, the Palestinians' biggest, (only?) asset is being a proxy thorn in Israel's side.

This might sound like a case of damning with faint praise, but I have found Adrienne Aresenault to be one of the better CBC reporters, in that she mostly describes events without editorializing.

Her tone of her last three or four reports, covering the events since the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier has annoyed me a bit; it seems to me she's ignoring the broader story and looking at it just from the point of view of the Gazan Palestinians. But based on her past work I'd have to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

But hey, speaking of CBC, did anyone happen to see Newsworld's treatment of uproar over the War Memorial defilement? It seemed pretty clear to me that there was an undertone of bemusement, like the outrage has been much ado about nothing, just an overreaction by right-wing types.

I am almost scared to wade into this one...but here goes...

Considering the ingrained hatred between these two groups and the savage,brutal history of the entire region,is it unfair to suggest they have no hope of real,lasting peace?Really,is there one square inch of inhabited land in this region that was not earned through bloodshed?Maybe,as we debate here with our western sensibilities,we DENY man's history of war and conquest in the ME.They are at war now,the're just taking baby steps and using women and children as fodder and accomplishing nothing...

I've been watching this tiny area of the planet damn near dominate world affairs since I was a little kid.Maybe it is time for an all-out war between the two,to the victor goes the spoils...That is thousands of years of history!That is how men fight wars!
I wouldn't doubt that in the end,less lives would be lost than 50 more yrs of this unending BS.
Is my suggestion a tad harsh?....Damn right!
But,maybe in reality it will be the only long term solution to the present,never-ending hatred and carnage....

The English socialist rag is sniffing Swiss cheese, weeping crocodile tears, and eating all round the hole of the "siege of Gaza".

Now it's a "right to function"... LOL.

Where is Arafat? Paging Mr. Arafat. Where is Jimmah Carter? Where is Svend? Arafat and Jimmah and Svend are willing to serve as partners for peace. Kumbaya, my friends, kumbaya....

There is no siege because there is no resistance to the Israeli forces.

Hurrah for the Swiss, the inventors of the cuckoo clock. ...-

Europe's response to the siege of Gaza is shameful
Guardian Unlimited - 1 hour ago
The Palestinians have no partner for peace. They will only have one if Israel agrees to recognise Palestine's right to function. Thank goodness for the Swiss. Alone in Europe, their government has dared to condemn what the Israelis are doing to Gaza. .. google news

karl - if, as you say, Israel has no right to create a Palestinian state, then Palestinians have no right to create an Israeli state. We aren't talking about creation, we are talking about recognition. And Israel has only recognized Palestine as a muncipal entity but not a national entity. The Oslo Accords recognized only municipal self-government powers, referring to education, culture, health. Not borders, foreign relations, resources, defence.

And the UN also has acknowledged a Palestinian land base - which is now occupied and being settled, by Israel.

Arafat was indeed double-sided; signing the Oslo Accords with one hand and keeping the fight going with the other - and his Fatah was corrupt. But Sharon was no better, settling the occupied lands as quickly as he could, rather than recognizing the Accord and the land rights of the Palestinians.

Robert in Calgary, occupation of land is not divine right. With your perspective, all of America and Africa belongs to the indigeneous peoples.

As for ex-liberal, no, my views are not those of Chomsky, Said or Fisk. No, the Palestinian state is not Jordan. We've been through this before; I disagree, completely, with your conclusions. All of them, including your view that 'the only people who called themselves Palestinians were Jews'. Are you seriously offering movies up as factual evidence????

And I think you are making a serious, a tragic, error in merging the fight against islamic fascism with the Israel-Palestinian situation. The two have nothing to do with each other. It's a fallacious tactic of argumentation, implying that the fight by the Palestinians for land, is somehow an action of islamic fascism. It implies an heroic action on the part of the Israelis to 'fight off' the Islamic fascists. But the Palestinian-Israeli situation, which began even before WWII has nothing to do with Islamic fascism.

It is not merely historically false but it is unethical to make that claim, because it is giving an attribute of heroism to the Israeli fight and an attribute of 'jihad terrorism' to the Palestinian fight, that does not in reality exist. The Israeli-Palestinian fight is about land. Property and the resources, such as water. Islamic fascism is about a particular mode of governance, tribalism, which has become dysfunctional within a massive increase in population and has instead of modernizing, retrenched into a regressive ideology based on Original Purity. That dysfunction between a tribal mode and a requirement for modernization to suit an industrial economic and political mode, has absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinian-Israeli situation.

"This won't be current for long, but click here to view the entire broadcast"

Incredible.
I'm facinated by the anchor that wonders if the North Korean I.C.B.M failure on July 4th, was "a coincidence"...

Without a gov't, without an economy, what's left for the Palestinians? They are locked into hatred and revenge, which has become their sole reason for life. Do you seriously think this is genetic? No. No, it's isn't islamofascism; it isn't a fight to return to tribalism. It's about being occupied, deprived of an economy, of self-gov't, of educational progress, of hope, for a whole generation. That does something to the psyche.

Posted by: ET
I could not agree more.

I've been watching this tiny area of the planet damn near dominate world affairs since I was a little kid.Maybe it is time for an all-out war between the two,to the victor goes the spoils...That is thousands of years of history!That is how men fight wars!
I wouldn't doubt that in the end,less lives would be lost than 50 more yrs of this unending BS.
Is my suggestion a tad harsh?....Damn right!
But,maybe in reality it will be the only long term solution to the present,never-ending hatred and carnage....

Posted by: Canadian Observer

sick, even for a neo-con. I would agree to it, however, if the Russians ans Saudis were allowed to arm Palistine to the exact same extent the Americans have armed Isreal.

AP, aka the MSM, is now receiving/disseminating propaganda/photos on behalf of the cult of black death in Gaza. Photos by an AP photog at:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Women's Liberation, Palestinian Style

Um Ahmed, 36, a mother of eight, holds what she claims is a suicide belt, as she sits for an interview with journalists in the village of Abasa, near the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis Wednesday July 5, 2006. She is one of a group of at least 20 women in the village that are given, according to the local al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades commander, suicide belts every night in preparation for an expected Israeli assault on the town. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti).

I should like to suggest, Voter, that it might be less than optimal for you to align yourself with a position you have just labelled as sick, independent of your provisos.

By the way, Jeremy Bowen has a nice piece in the BBC (yes, I know) on 'Why dreams must die if peace is to come'.

A few comments:

'They are able to take the same set of events and draw utterly different conclusions about how they got to where they are, what is happening now and what to do next"....'the Israelis and Palestinians are levelling the same accusations against each other, accusing each other of terrorism and opporession. Both believe that they are acting in self-defense"

He says that "in the 39 years since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, history has delivered a few fundamental lessons, which neither side at the moment is in any mood to absorb...."lesson for Israel is that force does not work"..."lesson for the Palestinians is that force does not work".

"If this crisis escalates further, Israel may well be tempted to topple the Hamas government. But what will happen after that? Would there be more or less chaos in the territories?"

"eventually their only chance of creating a decent future for their children is to make a political agreement about sharing the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean that is acceptable to both sides. To do that they will both have to recognize that peace has a price. Up to now, in all the years of negotiations, neither side has been prepared to pay what is needed in lost dreams and hard choises".

I think he's right. Peace has a price, and the price is to recognize reality and give up fictions. The fictions are such as espoused by ex-liberal, who supports his conclusions with, yes, fictions, with films. Or others, who conclude that one side is purely good and the other side is purely evil.

What are some of these fictions? About there being 'no such people as Palestinians', about the land being empty in 1948, about 'all Palestinians being terrorists' and wanting only to drive Israel into the sea', about the need for revenge, about all the land being 'ours because God gave it to us'.

And, other fictions, such as the 'right of refugees to return', such as that disappearance of Israel, such as the need for revenge.

Both sides have to give up these fictions, even if they consider them basic reasons for living, and accept reality. As Bowen says, that means that life isn't built according to dreams. It's based on reality, and hard choices have to be made, by BOTH sides.

I dunno, maybe we're reading too much into this? Perhaps we should reserve judgement until she she goes all Rachel Corrie, and throws herself in front of a bulldozer.

She she who who? Pronoun reference error.

Imagine being asked to mediate an intractable dispute which had gone on for years between two neighbours. Now suppose that one side in the dispute wants peace, but that the other not only doesn't want peace, but loudly insists, and reiterates generation after generation that there will be no peace until the other side doesn't exist any more. Who would you deem to be the reason for the problem?

Arabs in the regions surrounding Israel seem to thrive on their hatred of Jews, and -- this is what dashes hopes of resolution -- they seem to deeply believe that their hate is THE necessary force which will bring them the solution they want.

It seems practically self-evident that the average Jew would like nothing more than to have peace in the region, were it to be offered. If we are to take their utterances at face value, the Arabs who surround Israel have no such desire. So who's the problem?

Aye.

swingvoter, do you think Israel was given their military for free from the US? They bought every tank and gun they own. They developed their own military technologies. They bought from France, Germany, Britain, and many other countries too. And with a hundred million Muslims completely surrounding the state of Israel, openly preaching about how they should be eradicated from the middle of the Nation of Islam, who can blame them for wanting to defend themselves. The Islamist war against the Jews began long before Israel even became a nation. Read your history about the Hebron massacres or the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt".

the fight of the Arabs from the British Mandate is not about Land - it is about not letting Jews rise above their dhimmi status that Islam has kept them in for 14 centuries. Dhimmis are not even suppose to carry weapons let alone be sovereign in their own land.

ET disagrees with me - so what. Take a number and get in line with all the rest of the planet who doesn't like the idea of Jews defending themselves.

It is just plain historical fact: All the land that is present day Jordan used to be part of the British Mandate for Palestine. In about 1920 or so the British broke everything east of the Jordan River off of the Mandate to make a state for the Hashemites. No Jews were allowed to live east of the Jordan River - it was to be a Jew free land for the Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate.

The Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate were offered another state in 1947 when the UN proposed to partition the land west of the Jordan River into 2 states for 2 peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews agreed to this partition and the Arabs rejected it.

ET what is to disagree with here? This is not "personal narrative"; it is not to make the Jews "look heroic" in fighting Islamic crazies (what? you don't think they are heroic? You think they should just go back to being dhimmis?)
This is just history.

What - you don't think it is just a little bit odd that no one but Jews called themselves Palestinians before 1967?

ET, come on - you must be Jewish - you seem to have such a pathological aversion to thinking that maybe, just maybe, the Jews might be right (or do you think that there is no right and wrong - I don't think you are a moral relativist are you?) ET, I'm Jewish, as you probably know, and believe me there are so many people in my family who think that everything is just our fault, and why don't we just go quietly into the night.

ex-liberal. I guess we'll just have to 'agree to disagree'.

No, the Israeli-Palestinian fight is not about the Islamic religion and its agenda of 'dhimmitude'. It's about land and resources, about living within a state rather than a refugee camp, about developing your future, yourself. Trying to cloak the I-P war into a heroic 'fight against ancient dhimmitude' is frankly, egregious and unethical.

The Islamic fascist reality has nothing, nothing, to do with the above I-P war. Islamic fascism is a result of the demographic explosion of the ME during the last two decades, and the inability of the political infrastructure to mature into an industrial economic-political structure. It retained tribalism, but retained it within military and religious dictatorships. The religious dictatorship was the mov't to Wahhabism, focused on Purity of Origin. The tension between a population - and tribalism - especially when not isolated from the world, has exploded into fascism as the region tries to retain tribalism.

Islam has nothing to do with the I-P war, which has completely different causes - the refusal of Israel to recognize the realities of a settled population, the Palestinians, who had been living there for centuries. If you do not want these people as citizens (because they are not Jews); and no-one else wants them (Jordan and Egypt refuse); then, you must not simply let them live within refugee camps, but acknowledge that they exist. Compensate them for loss of farms and houses; Stop settling the land allotted by the UN to them. End the occupation - and particularly in the fertile West Bank, which has land and water while Gaza has neither. Recognize a Palestinian state, which Israel has so far refused to recognize, hoping that those people will disappear 'into the desert'.

In other words, give up the fictions (such as that Jordan is 'really' the Palestinian state and the million refugees were all really Jordanians who just happened to be living outside of Jordan under the British). Don't start with the caliphate 'dhimmitude' argument which is meaningless in this situation.

No, I'm not a Jew, I don't have any religion; I'm an atheist. (And for the unaware, being an atheist does not automatically mean one is a communist. I'm certainly not communist!).

I'm trying to look at the situation from an objective perspective - ie, what do you do in a situation where a global gov't says X (the UN) and where there are already people living there, and where the people moving there reject assimilation with those people. What do you do?

Can we PLEASE stop referring to Gaza, et al, as 'refugee camps'? I've BEEN to Gaza, it's not a 'camp', it's built up, and little different from any other Arab urban 'community'.

'Refugee Camps' is a misnomer deliberately intended to create the impression of lines of non-serviced tents with no roads or facilities available........Boo Hoo...but it ain't true.

A million Jews moved from the surrounding states to Israel proper. When will they be compensated? When will they get their piece of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc? Jordan IS the Pal state - as ex-liberal stated, 90% of mandate Palestine was cleaved off and made a no-go zone for the Jews. Why is it that the Jews moved but the Pals can’t possibly be expected to do the same?

Why is it that when Iran threatens to nuke Israel we never hear Pals react in horror at the thought of their allegedly “stolen” homes in Israel becoming part of a radioactive dead zone? Why is it that they react in glee at the thought? You’d think that if they’re so desperate to go back to grandpa’s home – even when in many cases grandpa, like Yasser Arafat, came from Egypt – they might have a thing or two to say about Iranian threats.

Why is it that I always see Canadian Pals on TV talking about Israel as an apartheid state, why do they without exception want a one state solution, and why is it painfully obvious that they want the Jews in dhimmitude?

Update re "mysterious explosion".

Muslim Islamist terrorists from Gaza "fired at a car" containing other Muslims.

The Rules of Engagement (ROE) for the Islamist terrorists in Gaza is: Shoot first, ask questions after. ...-

AP Doesn't Care About Injured Journalists

In a story about the Gaza operations, Associated Press Palestinian propagandist Ibrahim Barzak tosses off an insignificant tidbit of trivia:

In nearby Beit Lahiya, Palestinians fired at a car carrying a crew from the Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Jazeera, wounding two people, said Wael Dahdouh, one of the reporters in the car. The gunmen apparently thought the reporters were Israeli undercover agents, he said.

And that’s it. Because the Al Jazeera journalists were shot by Palestinians, the world’s media could not care less. Imagine if Israel had been responsible—there would be page one screaming headlines, demands for investigations, etc.
via LGF

Part of the Islamofascist agenda is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. With regards to the so-called 'Palestinian' people, the question is, what is their real motivation? Is it to have their own country and thereafter live in peace with Israel? Or to take over the whole combined area, after Israel is wiped off the face of the earth?

What is Palestine and who exactly are the Palestinians? Are they the same gentle Jewish, Christian and Muslim farmers as they were in 1946? Or have they morphed into something entirely different, including a large percentage of militant Arab Muslims from surrounding countries?That question may be answered by their choice of government. Hamas is a pan-ME, Arab terrorist organisation, headquartered in Syria. Is this choice of a foreign government representative of Palestinian wishes for their own country, living peacefully beside Israel? Or rather, the Islamofascist agenda to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

I'd say the latter.

And ET, the area was a squalid backwater producing little from the earth prior to the establishment of Israel. But then, that should go without saying when you look at the agricultural production from most Muslim countries.

I won't respond to the posts aligning Palestinians with Islamic fascism, for I've provided my reasons for this as an invalid alignment.

I also won't respond to the posts asserting that Jordan is 'the real home' of the Palestinians, for this refuses to acknowledge the reality of the two areas of trans-Jordan and Jordan.

There's also no point in trying to correlate the immigration of Jews to Israel from the surrounding Arab lands, a willing choice, with immediate citizenship upon arrival, and the exodus of the Palestinians, by force and fear, to refugee status with no citizenship, with the loss of their homes and farms.

With regard to irwin daisy, no, the area was not a 'squalid wasteland'. It was a peasant, non-industrial agriculture, akin to something called 'transhumance' which is an economy based around local village non-industrial agriculture and small animal husbandry (goats, etc).

You have to acknowledge the ecology of the ME. Check out, for instance, the arable land base of Saudi Arabia - it's about 1% and then, compare it with the arable land base of a European country, which is about 30%. AND, the European biome or ecological env't has water - rainfall, while the ME lacks water. These are realities that you perhaps don't know about. But, it means that the type of agriculture you have, without industrialism, is small scale, peasant, can support only a small population. They are governed within tribalism.

To change this - and it's not a complete change - you have to move to industrialism. That will enable irrigation (which can have bad results too). The problem with the ME, is that the states industrialized only oil, and used the revenues, not to develop their agriculture, and their education and their non-agricultural businesses - but- to support the dominant tribe. And, they retained tribalism rather than moving to democracy. That's the disastrous reason for islamic fascism. And islamic fascism has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

"Why is it that when Iran threatens to nuke Israel we never hear Pals react in horror at the thought of their allegedly 'stolen' homes in Israel becoming part of a radioactive dead zone? Why is it that they react in glee at the thought?"

Interesting point.

Presumably in this case they're happy to become "necessary collateral damage" for the greater cause!

Irwin Daisy said: "Part of the Islamofascist agenda is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth."

Hamas agrees: its entire agenda is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Hamas has been conducting test flights of rockets, aided/abetted by Iran and North Korea. ...-

Hamas works to fire rockets deeper into Israel
Reuters AlertNet, UK - 1 hour ago
By Nidal al-Mughrabi. GAZA, July 6 (Reuters) - Hamas rocket makers spent months adjusting engine parts and conducting test flights ...
google news

"... the immigration of Jews to Israel from the surrounding Arab lands, a willing choice ..."

Well they could have hung around for the Daniel Pearl treatment. I suppose that was an option.

"... the exodus of the Palestinians, by force and fear, to refugee status with no citizenship, with the loss of their homes and farms ..."

You mean told by the invading Arab armies to get out of the way to avoid getting caught up in the slaughter of the Jews. 'Cept it didn't quite turn out that way, did it?

And now 50 years' on, they're still in refugee camps, still on the U.N. teat, still going the terrorist route. That too is an option, but certainly not one that should be rewarded with a state.

BTW, related to an earlier post, Sharon's birth certificate says his place of birth is Palestine.

ET, you wrote:

"karl - if, as you say, Israel has no right to create a Palestinian state, then Palestinians have no right to create an Israeli state"

ummm.... I never said (or even thought) that the Palestinians had a right to create an Israeli state. The UN created the state of Israel. I am not following your line of thought here.

"We aren't talking about creation, we are talking about recognition."

Recognizing what? There has never been a Palestinain state to recognize, aside from possibly the Kingdom of Jordan, and yes I agree that that ship sailed long ago and that some new solution to the Palestinian question is needed.

"And Israel has only recognized Palestine as a muncipal entity but not a national entity."

Which is as much as anyone in the world (the UN included) has ever done, at least to my knowledge. You keep speaking as though there once was a Palestinian state that someone took away, and now needs to be "recognized". But there has never been a state to recognize. The logic that "we need to recognize them as a nation because they are a nation which needs to be recognized" is a bit of a circular argument, don't you think? It is more accurate to say that if there is to be a Palestinian nation, it must be created. To recognize something implies that it already exists. To create something recognizes that it never has existed. Which description best fits the historical reality of ther Arabs in Palestine?

I mean really, Quebec has as much historic and cultural claim to nationhood as they do. It too was never a state, but was a colony, that now has pretentions to statehood. Only they can justly claim that they lost their ties to their old colonial masters due to a military action fought just outside their colonial capital, on "their own soil" if you will. The Palestinaians on the other hand lost their connection to the Ottaman Turks because of battles fought elsewhere (mostly in Arabia and Europe). And yet we Canadians bristle when the PQ and the Bloc refer to Quebec as a nation. Why do we not bristle when Palestinians use "we are a nation" language. Or for that matter, why are we critical of the Native folks at Caledonia? Are they not just saying (and to some lesser degree, doing) what the Palestinians are doing? And now the Ontario government is going to relocate by force some Canadian "settlers" from their "home on Native land", or their "outpost" if you will. The nerve!! No, I don't subscribe to this logic myself, nor am I accusing you of doing so. I use it by way of comparison. It is easy to be critical of Israel, partly because many people have the tendency to favour the underdog. But the underdog is not always in the right.

You went on to say:

"The Oslo Accords recognized only municipal self-government powers, referring to education, culture, health. Not borders, foreign relations, resources, defence."

Again, this is more than they ever got from anyone, anywhere, anytime. It is a step toward statehood. But not if they keep fireing rockets, and doing suicide bombings. And certainly not if there is still a significant faction in their midst who will not let go of the goal of pushing the Jews into the sea. Certainly, I can see the Israeli's point in wishing to oppose the formation of a state on their borders who seek to be their military enemy. If Quebec was saying they wanted independance so that they could form an army so that they could invade us, I daresay we would fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening. I realize that some of the Palestinian leadership has set aside that previously stated goal (which by the way, was formative formative for the PLO). But many have not. Say for instance there were two nationalist parties in Quebec. One that stood for peaceful co-existance with Canada, and one that stood for war with Canada. Let's also say that the peaceful party is now in, and they win a referendum. Would you really want to be just one election away from a possible war? Would you not fight pre-emptivly to prevent it?

Having said all of this, you also state elsewhere:

"Arafat was indeed double-sided; signing the Oslo Accords with one hand and keeping the fight going with the other - and his Fatah was corrupt. But Sharon was no better, settling the occupied lands as quickly as he could, rather than recognizing the Accord and the land rights of the Palestinians."

Absolutly correct. But two wrongs don't make a right. Using the bad actions of one to excuse the bad actions of another is poor logic, and unhelpful in finding solutions to probnlems. This is what I meant earlier when I spoke of this as being a classic "race to the bottom". Unfortunately, it seems that both Israelis and Palestinians prefer their hawks to their doves. The only way out of a race to the bottom is if someone stops running. Like Gorbachev did when he saw there was no way the USSR could win the arms race without utterly destroying the Soviet economy. He did the right thing (and so it could be argued, did Reagan). Hopefully a couple of smart, tough, and (above all) reasonable figures will emerge on the two sides of this issue as well. Perhaps then, both sides can finally let go of their respective "fictions" as you have so aptly called them.

Anyway, as you have said elsewhere, saying that "Jordan is the Palestinian state" is unhelpful to the present situation. That ship has sailed. The question is, what is the way forward. Setting aside of mutual goals to drive the other from the land would be a good start in my view. But how to control the radical elements on both sides is the problem.

ET,

You surprise me. I typically agree with your logic on most issues, however, this one I completely disagree with.

It seems reasonable enough to see that the Palestinian desire for their own homeland is subordinate to their overall fanatical desire to obliterate Israel. At least the usual Islamofascist terrorist tactics are all evident - including mothers applauding their suicide bomber children; and men in black balaclavas, armed to the teeth, yelling allah akbar - whenever there's a camera in the vicinity. Not to mention their overall joy when the towers came down.

Given that, it's pretty hard not to admit that the Palestinian borders are Islamic battle fronts.

Further, your description of pre-Israel Palestine fits the term 'squalid backwater' quite splendidly. There's no doubt that at least the Israeli portion has benefited from modern irrigation and agricultual methods, while the Palestinian area remains as squalid as ever.

Denying facts does not stop them from remaining facts.

Jordan has 77.37% of the Palestine Mandate territory.

Karl says....
"Hopefully a couple of smart, tough, and (above all) reasonable figures will emerge on the two sides of this issue as well."

I would suggest it is a three-sided issue and -must- be a three-sided solution.

The nation that has over 3/4 of the mandate land has no role to play in the resolution?

Ridiculous!

Again, as to compensation, explain why the burden is placed on Israel and not the Arab nations who INVADED with the goal of DESTROYING Israel.

Ridiculous!

ET should be railing over how the Arab nations have used and abused the Palestinian Arabs since 1948.

Robert,

Okay, fair enough. Perhaps Jordan figures more prominently in this than I suppose.

And as to the compensation question: The more I think about it the more I wonder where ET is coming from on this one. The fact is that Israeli Jews are descended from people who were driven out, refused entry into safe countries like Canada, persecuted, driven from farms and towns that they had occupied for centuries, stripped of property, money, heirlooms, and in fact some of them had most of relatives killed. And this not just by the Nazis either, but in pogrom after pogrom. Two wrongs don't make a right, but where is the insistance that compensation be paid for these atrocities? In recent years we witnessed the spectacle of Swiss Banks doing everything they could to avoid giving money back to living relatives of those who died in the holocaust.

But why stop there? I have some Acadian ancestory. Where is my compensation from land confiscated and given to United Empire Loyalists in New Brunswick? And what about those self same loyalists driven from their land in New England? And what about the Natives before them? and what about the members of the previous tribe driven off by them?

The truth is that throughout history people have been driven from their land without compensation. And I dare say those same Palestinian Arabs originated somewhere else, like say Arabia. Where do you stop?

"In Rome, Italy's foreign minister called the scale of Israel's offensive out of proportion, Italian news agencies reported.

'It's unthinkable that to save one hostage we would embark in an operation that would cause the deaths of dozens of people,' the reports quoted Massimo D'Alema as saying."

I would agree with the foreign minister. Then again, Israel's disproportional "justice" is nothing new.

ET, the PLO was formed in 1964, prior to Israel acquiring the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These were territories under control of the Arab nations from 1947 to 1967, and they did nothing for the people there for 20 years. Yasser Arafat began fighting Israel the year Israel declared their statehood. He was against an Israeli state in the middle of the Muslim world. Plain and simple. The PLO did not fight against Israel for land. They began a war against Israel operating from the safety of Jordan, long before Israel came into posession of the West Bank and Gaza. This war is not about land and control of the land...it's about a non-Muslim state in the middle of the Muslim world!

ET, I try to look at the situatiion from the perspective of objective truth.

Practically everything you say is a cliche repetition of the anti-Jew/anti-Israel tripe levelled by Chomsky, Said, Fisk, Cupe, the Anglican Church, leftists, and assorted Bible haters.

you say "... the immigration of Jews to Israel from the surrounding Arab lands, a willing choice ..."

Following the 1947 United Nations vote to partition Palestine, Arab violence against Jews erupted throughout the Middle East and North Africa where more than 870,000 Jews were living (1945 estimate). Many of the Jews resided in communities with a continuous Jewish existence for 2,500 years or more.

Even before the November 1947 UN vote, Arab delegates to the UN, in particular those of Egypt and Iraq, had hinted at their intentions in speeches, warning that Partition might endanger Jews in Arab lands, intensify antisemitism and lead to massacres of Jews. These veiled threats must have had a chilling impact on Jews in Arab lands where memories of the pro-Nazi stance of the local Arab governments and nationalists were still fresh, especially in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, as well as in Libya where Arab mobs had accepted the occupying Germans' invitation to plunder the Jews. And recall the incitement to murder Jews issued over Radio Berlin during World War II by Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem. These facts make obvious nonsense out of claims that Jews made a "willing choice" to move to Israel

In Iraq, new laws made Zionism punishable by death. In Aleppo, Syria, 300 Jewish homes and 11 synagogues were burned to the ground, and half of the city's 4,000 Jews fled elsewhere. In Aden, 82 Jews were killed. Pogroms accompanied by confiscation of Jewish property and belongings was the norm in Arab countries. From 1948 on, Jewish communities that had survived in Arab countries since antiquity dwindled to a few families or became extinct.

Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel. Since their belongings were confiscated as the price of leaving, they arrived in Israel pennyless, but they were welcomed and quickly absorbed into Israeli society. In reality, an exchange of populations took place between Jews leaving Arab countries and Arabs leaving Jewish Palestine. But while the Jewish refugees quickly became productive citizens of their new home country of Israel, the Palestinian Arabs were forced by their politically motivated leaders to fester as "refugees" for generations.

Israel absorbed the Jews who fled Arab countries and millions of refugees from Nazi and Soviet Europe in the same time. After brief periods of adjustment, the Jews fleeing life-threatening conditions in other lands became indistinguishable from other Israelis. Today tiny Israel, with relatively few resources, has no "refugee problem" while the wealthy Arab countries, with vast lands and oil riches, cannot find a way to help the Arabs from Mandated Palestine. (http://www.palestinefacts.org)

excellent point Pete

what does our friend ET have to say about that historical objective fact

oh, and ET, there are plenty of Jews who are atheists - so you could absolutely be a Jew and an atheist at the same time.

Maybe that's why you have such blinders on when it comes to the state of the Jews - it kind of irks your atheist self that the ingathering of Jews from the all the lands of their dispersion has occured (you know, fullfillment of biblical prophecies) . My experience is that atheists, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, have difficulties with Israel

"fundamentalist" atheists that is - those totally committed to the idea that the God of the Bible does not exist.

ok, just one more for ET

She says "It is not merely historically false but it is unethical to make that claim (that the fight against islamic fascism and dhimmitude = Arab/Israeli fight), because it is giving an attribute of heroism to the Israeli fight and an attribute of 'jihad terrorism' to the Palestinian fight, that does not in reality exist.

unethical? huh?

read the whole thing http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21997

read anything by Bat Yeor

During a Friday sermon broadcasted live on June 6, 2001 on PA TV, from the Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, Palestinian Authority employee Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi reiterated these sentiments with regard to Jews:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah

And most recently, interviewed by Wall Street Journal reporter Karby Legget in late December of 2005, Hassam El-Masalmeh, who heads the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, confirmed the organizations plan to re-institute the humiliating jizya. El-Masalmeh stated explicitly,

We in Hamas intend to implement this tax (i.e., the jizya) someday. We say it openly – we welcome everyone to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules.

There have been ceaseless calls for jihad in Palestine during modern times—in the 1920s and 30s by Hajj Amin El Husseini and Izz Al-Din al Qassam; by the late Yasser Arafat throughout his 40-years as leader of Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization; and now under Hamas. Hamas's foundational covenant calls for an annihilationist jihad to eradicate Israel. It states, “There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by jihad.” Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers are presently assisting Hamas commanders in arming and training a new jihadist army called the Murbitun—a name which derives from the pious Almoravid religious warriors—Islamized Berbers whose jihad campaigns ravaged North Africa and Iberia in the 11th and 12th centuries. And on April 1, 2006 the new Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mahmoud al-Zahar made clear the goal of such jihadists, “…our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine …will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land”

Thus let me close with these penetrating insights from historian Bat Ye’or, who observed, that jihad remained,

…the main cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since Israelis are to be regarded, perforce, only as a religious community, their national characteristics – a geographical territory related to a past history, a system of legislation, a specific language and culture – are consequently denied. The “Arab” character of the Palestinian territory is inherent in the logic of jihad. Having become fay territory by conquest (i.e. “taken from an infidel people”), it must remain within the dar al-Islam. The State of Israel, established on this fay territory, is consequently illegal.

And she concluded,

…Israel represents the successful national liberation of a dhimmi civilization. On a territory formerly Arabized by the jihad and the dhimma, a pre-Islamic language, culture, topographical geography, and national institutions have been restored to life. This reversed the process of centuries in which the cultural, social and political structures of the indigenous population of Palestine were destroyed. In 1974, Abu Iyad, second-in-command to Arafat in the Fatah hierarchy, announced: "We intend to struggle so that our Palestinian homeland does not become a new Andalusia." The comparison of Andalusia to Palestine was not fortuitous since both countries were Arabized, and then de-Arabized by a pre-Arabic culture.

Ex-lib:

ET keeps affirming that it's not an Islamofacist thing because she doesn't want to admit that she's on the same side as those barbarians with respect to Israel.

Mississauga,

Clearly, you haven't read ETs comments well. The only barbaric thing here is your line of thinking.

I think Israel has committed enough barbaric acts to warrant more than your blind defense of them.

Trying counting the number of UN resolutions Israel has ignored. Of course, when it comes to other nations, it's a reason for war.

J: Before you comment on 'UN Resolutions' it's prudent to look at who voted to pass said 'resolutions'.

Resolutions censuring Israel are proposed and endorsed by Muslim countries, countries being bought by muslims, countries who want to be bought by oil-rich Muslims, tinpot dictatorships who want the light of public scrutiny shone on someone else, and countries that wish to embarrass Israel's supporter, the US.

There is no validity, but much venality, to any of these votes......and certainly no reflection of honest reality.

J, try to lay off of the moonbat-koolaid.

Do you know how the UN functions?

Efforts by moonbats and their ilk to draw comparisons between UN action on Israel and Iraq misses the fundamental differences between the different kinds of resolutions in the UN organization.

UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding recommendations

UN Security Council resolutions have a hierarchy.

Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter - that deals with "Pacific Resolution of Disputes" - are implemented through a process of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration between the parties to a dispute. UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.

The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter - that deal with "Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression." When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.

In 1967, no UN body adopted a resolution branding Israel as the aggressor in the Six-Day War - Israel was acting in self-defense. No Security council chapter VII resolutions have been issued against Israel

That there are literally hundreds of non-binding resolutions passed against Israel at the UN says more about the UN than it does about Israel.

Sheez, you'd think that people who love the UN so much would know a little more about how it operates.

J,

I watched Michael Coren tonight, and your fellow Israel hater Sid Ryan brought up your very point, and then went one further and mentioned how Switzerland has condemned Israel.

Manu Raj countered with many of the same points Nemo2 and ex-liberal did, and then went on to point out that not only did Switzerland steal money from Jews murdered in concentration camps, but it also was extremely reluctant to turn the money over when it all came to light.

So they’re not exactly a credible source.

Sid was left looking like a fool. I’m sure you know exactly how he felt.

Trying counting the number of UN resolutions Israel has ignored. Of course, when it comes to other nations, it's a reason for war.

So you’re a supporter of the Americans in Iraq? Good on you.

I don't understand why people try and deflect one of the biggest issues when discussing Palestine, Islam, and terrorism. Islam is a religion that goes to extremes to oppress women. It goes to extremes to oppress, silence, and eliminate any dissenting voices or non-Islamists. And the peoples of the Muslim world are being used as tools. Their children are being brainwashed! They are brainwashed to walk into a crowd of women and children and blow themselves up, hopefully killing countless innocent civilians. And they are brainwashed to believe that this is the will of their god, and they will be rewarded for it. There are some very evil men who are in control of all of this. They need to be held accountable, because what they are doing is not something a civilized world would allow. It is time the leaders of Islam were held to account. Where are the war-crimes charges for the leaders of Islam who have so warped a religion that they are slaughtering their own young in a war against the non-Islamic world?

"J, try to lay off of the moonbat-koolaid."

"Sid was left looking like a fool. I’m sure you know exactly how he felt."

Nails "J" to a "T"

CBC, Reuters, AP et al have demonstrated to me with sufficient clarity that their desired outcome is to see the Arabs push Israel into the sea.

Why is another matter. I believe it is a matter of envy. Similar ever present but slightly less vivid envy of America that is fomented by the hypocritical Librano sect in Trawna the Good.

I suggest we loan the PA some of our Jane/Finch and Scarboro Jamaican street/drug gang brothers and they'll have the matter cleared up in no time.

The Muslim Islamist Terrorists of Gaza are on the road to oblivion. ...-

Hoping for Plan B

In The Two O'Clock War: The 1973 Yom Kippur Conflict and the Airlift That Saved Israel, author Walter Boyne relates the story of how Israel, faced with national extinction in the first days of the conflict, considered the idea of dropping nuclear weapons on Arab capitals as a last resort. This story is repeated in an Air Force monograph on the 1973 War without confirmation. By far the most intriguing version of the story as related by Boyne concerns the rumor that Israel had prepared a strike on Moscow to wreak ultimate vengeance on Sadat's superpower sponsor, although Boyne attaches little credibility to the tale, citing limitations on the range of Israel's F-4 strike aircraft.

James Dunnigan, speaking at the Glenn and Helen podcast, argued that the key problem posed by Kim Jong Il's missile posturing -- for China -- was that it might force Japan to go nuclear, adding that Japan with it's plentiful supply of fissile material and superlative industrial and technical base, could produce weapons and launchers that could unquestionably work within fairly short order.

These two instances illustrate the limits of political correctness in dealing with nations. No declarations of "illegitimacy" will eliminate the actual existence of Israel; no admonitions against rearmament can wholly restrain a Japan bent upon survival. Words are one thing, but physical reality is another. An Salama A Salama in Al-ahram op-ed piece said:

The Palestinians must be aware by now that they can no longer count on Arab help, economically, politically or militarily. They must defend themselves without waiting for Arab assistance.

Half the Palestinian cabinet and many parliamentarians are in Israel's hands. President Mahmoud Abbas is trapped and Gaza is being pummeled, all because one Israeli soldier has been abducted in retaliation to the killing of an entire Palestinian family on a Gaza beach. And yet Arab nations have had enough. They've had enough of this endless tragedy. They've had enough of the slogans and rhetoric that gets us nowhere. Arab governments have run out of options. They are tired of running around, trying to get sympathy from the UN and a resolution from the Security Council. Meanwhile, Israel is bullying everyone. Only recently it sent planes into Syria's airspace, just to show the Syrians who's the boss. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh isn't even asking the international community to intervene.

Just who in the "international community" actually has the ability to intervene against Israel is a good question. The one country that definitely has the capability to physically compel Israel is exactly the one Arab countries know better than to ask. ...-
belmont club

Arabs tired of "trying to get sympathy from the UN".......the aggressor as victim....I'm holding back tears.

The 'invasion of Syrian airspace' rings true though........in the 80's a couple of our Saudi project's guys, stationed in Tabuk, used to say that, every once in a while, an IDF fighter used to do a touch & go at the local airport. The Saudi Air Force were always otherwise engaged, as they heard their mothers calling.