CBCpravda mentioned it a few years ago. this is when they looted thier own greenhouses.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/09/13/Gaza_Egypt20050913.html

The real question in all of this is how does this benefit Egypt? What's up?

it keeps 350000 extras from flooding your side of the border.

Now would be a good time to get that wall back up, as fast as possible.

Rumour has it that they crossed over to do a little grocery shopping and plan on returning to Gaza. Sort of like cross border shopping ...Gaza style.

Hamas is a pariah organization in the eyes of all of the mid-east save Iran and perhaps Syria. were this to happen anywhere else this would be regarded as an act of war.

cal2 -and it is not just 35,000 extras, it is 35,000 peace loving Palestinians. 35,000 peace loving people that no Arab country wants – Jordan kicked them out, even though most of them are from Jordan. Saudi Arabia does not want them either. The wall is the only thing that has kept them out of Egypt. But, the EVIIL Israelis are condemned for having a wall. The Egyptian wall is rarely, if ever mentioned, expect for today.

I can't understand why the evil Jooos would put up an apartheid wall on Egypt's border?
I mean after all the Egyptians wouldn't do it. Islam is the religion of peace and brotherhood.
Oh wait, it was so that the Palestinians would get food and supplies from their Muslim brothers. Crafty buggers aren't they.

Maybe if the morons would stop shelling rockets into Israel, who sealed them off on their side for it, it's what precipitated this, they could live like the rest of us in the civilized world and buy groceries from their neighbors without explosives.

And, don't rush to blame Israel for this as Egypt agreed with the Israeli sanctions.

"Hamas appears to be applying pressure on Egypt, which has cooperated with Israel's sanctions by keeping the Rafah border closed. By affecting public opinion in Egypt, scenes of privation in Gaza could force Egypt to ease the border closure, allowing the Hamas regime to relieve its isolation."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572523339&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Palestinians have got to be one of the most collectively dumb, failed societies on the face of the earth. How many times do you have to repeat the same failed policies before it dawns on you that it isn't working? 60 years of stupidity ought to be enough.

What does it say about your people when your own brethren are trying to get rid of you and don't want you in their country?

When even other arabs want nothing to do with you, you should probably evaluate your miserable lives.

The Egyptian wall has been reported on before, though not widely. And it certainly was not obsessed over in op-eds, blogs, UN white papers and resolutions, etc. like the "racist" and "xenophobic" Israeli version.

Actually, terrence, I don't think that Jordan kicked the Palestinians out because they were never in Jordan in the first place.

And the reason that Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egpyt doesn't want them, apart from their 'low caste' status, is because they are not and never were, Jordanian, Saudi Arabians or Egyptian citizens. Israel would very much like the Palestinian people to be absorbed by these other nations; that would end any notion of a Palestinian state and Israel could then continue to settle all the lands of the West Bank immediately rather than incrementally.

Compare Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, with the US; it doesn't want the Mexican lower class in its borders as illegals - even though the American left is chastizing the US, saying that the Mexicans 'are all similar human beings, after all'. That, of course, is not the point.

The reason they broke down the Egyptian wall is because Israel had closed the Other Wall (to Israel) and the people in Gaza had no food, water, electricity.

What I'm puzzled about, is - was the Egyptian border patrol really unaware of months and months of deconstruction work being carried out against that wall? I quote: "months in slicing through the heavy metal wall using oxy-acetylene cutting torches". The border patrol heard and saw nothing?

ET,

Prior to 1967 Jordan didn't exist. Transjordan did. And it encompassed the west bank. The majority in what is left of Transjordan, now Jordan, are palestinian.

Prior to 1967 the gaza strip was part of Egypt and their people Egyptian.

Your facts are false.

"Pharoah! Let my people go!"

*
this is so heartwarming... the egyptians welcomed their
palestinian brothers with open wallets, er... arms...

"Egyptian shopkeepers swiftly raised prices of milk,
taxi rides and cigarettes, but that did not deter the
Gazans, for many of whom it was their first trip out of
the territory."

*

The Arabs will always pay lip service to the Palestinians but the last thing they want is them actually relocating in their countries.

I wondered about this wall as well. How is it, that this is the first, the majority of us have heard about it?

I mean the mean ol joos decided to build a wall and it is all over the news, Eygpt builds one and we don't hear about it until someone blows a hole in it?

Jim,

The simple answer is that the newswires are staffed by Arab stringers employed by western anti-Semites. They haven't made an issue out of Egypt's wall because they can't blame the Jews for it. Israel's wall can be. Thus, we hear 2 years worth of Jew hatred and not a peep about Egypt.

warwick - prior to 1967, we can consider the Ottoman rule of the entire area, the British rule of the area, the 1948 UN split of the area into two states - and try without success to define who is 'original citizenship'.

My point is that to claim that Jordan should accept the Palestinians because 'they are really Jordanians' is false. Or Egyptians. They were living in an area ruled by the Ottomans and the British, and even, officially, the area was called Palestine. But the name isn't relevant.

The reality is, that Palestinians were legally living in the area - owning land and farms, paying taxes, etc. Then there was the movement in the 19th century and in the early 20th c. for a Jewish state, with its UN approval in 1948.

Any reasons given for Israeli 'rights' to the land which include axioms such as 'God gave us the land' or "we were here first', are, I hope, rationally unacceptable to most people. After all, these are the same arguments used by the Caledonian natives and we don't, legally, accept those arguments.

I'm not sure what you expect the people who were already living there to do when the UN declares that the land you live in, is now defined as X-country, and when the govt of this new land makes it quite clear that, due to your religion, you are no longer welcome as a citizen.

What I would expect as a 'just solution' would be to give these people very fair compensation for their farms and homes, and, follow the UN outlined plan for their own state.

Instead - no compensation, and occupation and continual settling of their lands.

As to people's surprise for the Palestinian hostility, I confess to my own surprise why anyone would expect them NOT to be hostile. In the beginning, I would think the hostility would have a direct cause. Loss of farms, loss of homes, loss of income, fears, status as refugee, etc.

But, over time - and it's now so many years that the original refugees are now grandparents and great grandparents, the anger will have transformed into a purely irrational hatred of any and all Israelis. Causes, by now, are no longer needed for hatred to exist; it's purely irrational. You'll find the same irrational hatred among Israeli extremists. So, what's the solution? Certainly, telling the Palestinians to 'stop hating us' is ridiculous. The anger is now too deep. Equally, telling many settlers that the land is not theirs by 'god's right' is useless; that's what they believe.

I think that Israel, as a political state, has to acknowledge that the Palestinian people are 'there'; they aren't going to go away; they aren't going to be absorbed by any other state. They were in the now-Israel lands before and they are now in the occupied areas. That means, for Israel, to negotiate a large financial settlement as compensation, and, get out of the West Bank, remove all settlements.

Israel won't want to do that; the West Bank is fertile, and above all, it has access to the important commodity in the ME - water.

But I don't see any other solution.

ET, I usually agree with most of what you write here SDA; however, I don’t recall you messing up facts as you did at January 23, 2008 12:49 PM : “Actually, terrence, I don't think that Jordan kicked the Palestinians out because they were never in Jordan in the first place.”

A quick Google search of “Jordan” and “Palestinians” gives 552,000 entries. Many of these clearly support my and Warwick’s comment. Palestinians were part of Jordan from its inception.

Here is a quote from one of the many sources:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jo.html#Intro

“Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the UK received a mandate to govern much of the Middle East. Britain separated out a semi-autonomous region of Transjordan from Palestine in the early 1920s, and the area gained its independence in 1946; it adopted the name of Jordan in 1950. The country's long-time ruler was King HUSSEIN (1953-99). A pragmatic leader, he successfully navigated competing pressures from the major powers (US, USSR, and UK), various Arab states, Israel, and a large internal Palestinian population, despite several wars and coup attempts.”

Further, who said, “that Jordan should accept the Palestinians because 'they are really Jordanians' is false”? I did not say that; but now that you mention it, Palestinians are as much Jordanian as other Jordanian is – many of them were in what is now called Jordan when Jordan became a country.

The best piece of Bush's ME policy was taking the Palistinians off of center stage. He destroyed their international political cache finally. Now reduced to living and looking like the Arab answer to A Clockwork Orange, they can finally cannabalize themselves between Hamas and Fatah for all of the world to see.

ET - Israel has also been supplying basic humanitarian aid to them. Maybe it's time for the Saudis to airlift them stuff and for the Palistinians get their arms dealers to add cartons of cigarettes with the shipments.

Not wanting to gang up on you ET .... but that is the single most uninformed piece of revisionist rubbish that I've ever seen you post.

Good God!

ET,

They can take their "compensation" from the Jewish land taken from those expelled from Arab states.

In addition, most of the Palestinians (who invented their association with the name after 1967) either left by choice (due to scaremongering by other Arabs) or were bought out for cash. The Jews didn't have that choice.

Yes, there were both arab and jewish people living there pre-48. That was because it was re-developed from wasteland by returning jews in the 19th century and Arabs flocked to make use of the opportunities provided to them by Jewish enginuity and work.

The idea of a two state solution was accepted by Isreal but rejected by Arabs. Between 48 and 67 the land that is now called the west bank was Transjordan. This is fact. It was a country with boarders. Ditto with Gaza as part of the country of Egypt. Fact.

Now Jordan doesn't want them back even though they are the same people as them. There is no jordanian "people" just a set of arbitrary boarders. The people are the same from lebanon, jordan, syria, etc. They're all Arabs. Their chosen nationalities are not set, are not static and are not based on language, culture, race or any other criteria (the bedoin of Saudi Arabia is different though.) They aren't even as differentiated as Europeans which at least have different languages and cultures. Prior to their leaders politicizing their cause, the idea of palestinian nationality didn't exist.

Now due to several generation of institutionalized hate propaganda, the people of that region are completely wrecked. The Jews didn't wreck them, the Arabs - their own people - wrecked them.

Now - unlike in 48 - they couldn't run a paper route much less a nation-state.

If the Palestinians would quit lobbing bombs at Israel and cutting holes in fences and destroying the Gaza think what they could accomplish with that energy.

Regarding the West Bank being fertile - big parts of Israel are NOW fertile. Prior to the EEEVIIIL Joooos "occupying" Israel, these places were non-fertile deserts that grew very little, if anything. Now, many of them are extremely productive, and these areas are exclusively “occupied” by the EEEVIIIL Joooos.

The Palestinians in Gaza are good at rocket and suicide attacks, but when it comes to supplying basic human necessities, they rely on the EEEVIIIL Joooos and the Egyptians. When the EEEVIIIL Joooos gave the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, they turned over a number of extremely successful greenhouse complexes and offered to train the Palestinians in running them. The EEEVIIIL Joooos were getting millions of dollars profit a year from these complexes, as well as supplying Israel and Europe with fresh fruit and vegetables. The “oppressed” Palestinians turned down the offer and dismantled the greenhouses; they could use the metal in war operations.

http://www.take-a-pen.org/english/Fences.htm

Pics and details of apartheid fences around the world – but non-Jooooish ones that seem to fly under the Left’s radar:

Mexico and the USA
North and South Korea
North Cyprus/South Cyprus
Northern Ireland
Hoek van Holland, Netherlands
India and Pakistan
Spain and Morocco
Saudi Arabia and Yemen
Botswana and Zimbabwe

*
"et phones home... to claim that Jordan should accept the Palestinians because
'they are really Jordanians' is false."

*
geez... that didn't stop them from trying to take over jordan, did it?

so... master military stategists that they are... the palestinians commenced
"operation kick myself in the balls".

*

"In mid-June 1971, after three tense months during which the sides made efforts to fortify their positions by political means, Jordan embarked on the final campaign against the Palestinians. The Jordanian army, which for almost 10 months had been pushing the Palestinian organizations out of the major cities, used large forces to expel them from the mountainous regions of the cities of Jerash and Ajloun, in the north of the kingdom, where about 3,000 armed Palestinians were located."

"The members of Fatah declared that they preferred to die in battle rather than surrender to the Jordanian dictates. After four days of battle, the Jordanian army overcame the last pockets of resistance."

*

Hey kids, book your hotel rooms early: looks like the Joooo hate fest known as Durban II is a go:

A government official has told The Canadian Press the so-called Durban II conference has turned into a "gong show" with Libya elected to chair the gathering, Cuba appointed vice-chair and rapporteur, and anti-Israel rhetoric building.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban was a fiasco as Arab and Muslim countries ganged up in their criticisms of Israel.

*
"terrence says... when it comes to supplying basic human necessities"

let's not overlook that the pals are masters of media propaganda.

witness the "horrific blockade" of fuel oil that has provoked a
"supposed humanitarian crisis"... the fact is, that 70% of the pals
electricity comes through transmission lines unaffected by the
very blockade of fuel that they are screaming about.

transmitted from where, you ask?

that'd be israel.

the msm doesn't care about unsexy details like that.

genius.

*

It was probably due to a cock-up by the Hamas translators that were working on the Reagan Archives.

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Similar result though:

“Rafah became a huge Middle Eastern bazaar. Thousands of people were herding back cows, sheep and even camels from Egypt into the Gaza strip. Others brought back motorbikes while many women lugged back cans of olive oil and men could be seen weighed down with jerry-cans full of fuel....Moneychangers flocked to the border”

terrence - because part of Transjordan became defined as Jordan does not mean, logically, that All who lived in the rest of Transjordan are now 'Jordanians'. That would be similar to saying that because part of Europe became defined as Belgium, all who lived in Europe are now Belgians. I hope you can see how illogical such a conclusion is.

warwick - I totally disagree with you. Tit for tat arguments (well, the Arab lands then expelled the Jews) won't solve the problem.

I also disagree that the name Palestine was invented post 1967; as you know, it's a very old name, and the people who lived there were indeed defined as Palestinian. What name would you prefer that they call themselves?

I also strongly disagree with you that they left voluntarily or were compensated. You are probably aware of the various Israeli laws including the 'cultivation of waste lands ordinance of 1949, 'emergency land requisition of 1949' 'absentee property law of 1950, the land acquisition law of 1953...and so on.

I think your suggestion that the reason people were living there prior to 1948 was solely due to Jewish land development is totally without foundation. No, the land was not a 'wasteland' before; it never was.

It was always a populated area from ancient times; the type of farming there was always Subsistence Farming and transhumance, which is a type of peasant farming in low rainfall areas. It can support a population in the hundred thousands.

The European settlers brought the technology and tools from a Rainfall Agricultural system - a very different agriculture requiring, in the ME, irrigation techniques (since the rainfall is inadequate). It can support a larger population but requires industrial style technology for irrigation - which was, by the time of the 20thc, available.
Your opinion that the land was empty and a wasteland before the Jews arrived is, I maintain, totally without foundation.

I also disagree with you that Israel accepted a two-state solution. It never did and still, officially, doesn't, though many Israeli people want exactly that. I am hoping that you don't bring up the Oslo accord as an example of a 'two-state' solution, because it wasn't.

Your opinion that the people are 'all the same' because 'they are all Arabs' is also, I maintain, superficial. After all, one can say the same about Europe - why have different countries in Europe? They are 'all Caucasians'. Why have separate USA and Canada? Humph. We are 'all Caucasian'. We both speak English. Humph.

No, what you are profoundly ignoring is that a common identity, such as 'arab' isn't definitive of a nation, just as a common identity of 'caucasian' isn't definitive of a nation. People form societies based on local identities, which are formed out of long term associations with the local ecology, the long term history of living in that ecology economically and socially.

These identities are not 'set', and are not 'static' but are historically evolving. The fact that Belgians speak French in one part of that nation, doesn't mean that they would consider themselves properly part of France. Same with Quebec.

There's no such thing as 'race' by the way.

Yes, the idea of Palestinian nationality didn't exist until about 1948. The idea of Israeli nationality didn't exist until then either. At one time, the idea of Canadian nationality didn't exist either. So?

terrence - I don't think that silly terminology like 'the evil Joos' accomplishes anything. With regard to the West Bank, please see my comments above. Again, the area wasn't a wasteland. What you do understand is the nature of different types of ecological adaptation. A major problem in the ME, of course, is water. Before introducing industrial technology, which was developed in Europe, with its rainfall ecology, you could only have a basic horticulture and transhumance in that area. This is a simple peasant agriculture that provides quite well for a medium size population. And it's usually found in areas with water problems. But to call it a wasteland shows an ignorance of reality.

The rest of your post is too juvenile to respond to.

Hamas’ seizure of Northern Sinai from Egypt sends Washington, Jerusalem and Cairo into tense consultations

Senior military sources told DEBKAfile that the strategic feat achieved by Hamas Tuesday night, in capturing a section of Sinai from Egyptian forces, is irreversible. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert held tense talks on the crisis Wednesday night, Jan. 23.

By demolishing the 10-km concrete barrier dividing the Gaza Strip from Egyptian Sinai, Hamas, backed by 200,000 Palestinians who surged across Wednesday, has acquired a new stronghold outside Israel’s military reach. US and Israeli intelligence sources report that Hamas laid the ground for its coup and timed it deliberately for the opening Wednesday of the Palestinian National Congress in Damascus. This event was organized by Tehran and Damascus to counter the US-promoted Annapolis conference and discredit Mahmoud Abbas’ diplomatic track with Israel under the US aegis...

Related:

The Palestinian fundamentalist group ruling the Gaza Strip has plans for building on its successes in seizing control of the Egyptian border...Hamas agitators are inciting Egyptian opposition parties, led by their parent Muslim Brotherhood, to stage a mass anti-government protest this coming weekend.

You are really not having a good day, ET. Perhaps you should go out and get some fresh air. And, maybe you should try to READ and UNDERSTAND the comments before you emotionally over react to them ("react" is the word; you do NOT respond and deal with content).

In short, what you wrote at January 23, 2008 2:51 PM is really too juvenile to respond to.

"Tit for tat arguments (well, the Arab lands then expelled the Jews) won't solve the problem."

But destroying Israel will then?

Tit for tat my ass. Arab Israelis have full citizenship rights not available to Arabs in any other ME country. Jews in Arab countries have no rights.

Arabs didn't have to leave as illustrated by the FACT that many did not and are thus "persecuted" with rights not enjoyed by those that did leave.

Israel took in all those Jews who were expelled from Arab states and gave them full rights. That is the reason they don't need compensation. They've moved on. If Arab states had treated those who left Israel in the same way, they wouldn't be in squalor now.

There will be two states when Arabs want to prosper more than they want to murder Jews and destroy everything within reach. That includes supplying their own economy and resources and not relying on the Jews they're trying to kill to provide it for them.

As for Europe, re-read my post. I believe I stated clearly that language and culture are differentiated in Europe in a way that doesn't exist in the area of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the West Bank. The Arabs in this area have common culture, common language, common history. They are one people with more than one territory. A difference in the ME would be Arab vs Persian. They have different language, culture and history. Even the Bedouin nomads are different from the rest of the Arabs. But an Arab from Jordan and an Arab from Lebanon and an Arab from the West Bank share a 800 years of history, a language and a culture.

And using Belgium isn't the best example. They're on the brink of spitting up for the reasons I stated - language and culture.

ET, an offer of financial compensation, as well as an offer of citizenship, could go a long way. In such arrangements, as in business, one wants finality - a full and final release. Compensation, citizenship in exchange for that finality, and an oath of loyalty.

ET, I agree with your analysis.

The problem is, those with the political agenda to use the Palestinian people would think nothing of killing the first few takers to make examples of them.

I suppose to be Palestinian is to live largely in fear, and mostly notably not from the Israelis. What a dreadful way to exist.

So it's "racist" and "illegal" for Israel to build a wall to keep out insane, hateful extremists who plan to blow themselves up amongst many Israelis...

But when Egypt does it, it's a "right"?

See, Leftist anti-Israel hateful bigot extremists? This is discrimination and hate directed at Israel. See? How can you not? Are you bloody insane?

Double standards... it's as if the Most Superior Grand High Moonbat of the Far Left has deemed it an imperative, sort of like Taqiyaa is for the Islamic supremacist-imperialists...

*
"canadian sentinel asks... But when Egypt does it, it's a "right"?"

of course it is... you conservative brute!

it's like rappers sh!tting all over their ho's... or using the "n" word.

you just apply a little of that moonbat "cultural context"...
and everybody's cool.

*

When it comes to Israel, ET you do come up with a lot of rubbish. Fact: there never was a Palestinian nationality. Fact: in 1948/49 the label Palestinian was given to the Jews not the Arabs. It was only much later that Arafat appropriated the term for the Arabs.

As to the Arabs in Gaza being forced to tear down the wall due to Israel cutting off their electricity, guess what. It was Hamas that blew up the generator which provided them with electricity. No matter for the Jew haters it is all Israel's fault.

terrence - I stand by my comments to you.

warwick - you know perfectly well that Arab citizens of Israel don't have the same rights as Jewish citizens because some 'rights' are defined not by citizenship but by ethnicity. Some things are confined to those of the Jewish religion only, including land use, governed by the ILA (Israeli Land Administration 1960) and marriage rules as well as a great deal of social discrimination.

Again, your comments about 'tit for tat' are not relevant. Israel should make its decisions based, not on 'tit for tat' but on what it believes is just and fair. By the way, Jews in, of all places, Iran, do have rights.

I also disagree with your suggestion that the Palestinians didn't 'have' to leave; I tend to believe the researchers who suggest that there was a long campaign by the early zionists during the British era and post WWII to get the Palestinians to leave. I don't see how Israel could have defined itself as a Jewish state, ie, with a clear self-definition of itself within one particular religion, without excluding the current majority who were of a different religion.

Israel has a policy of taking in ANY person, from ANY country in the world (not simply the Arab nations), with immediate citizenship, if they are of the Jewish religion.

I disagree with you about the 'arabs in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan'. They do not have a common culture and history. Language and culture do not emerge fully formed from the earth; the evolve over time and history. This evolution is directl linked to the local reality of the ecology, the economy that has adapted to that ecology, etc. You are ignoring this.

To use your way of thinking, the US and Canada should merge. Indeed, we even should merge with the UK and Australia and New Zealand. What you are ignoring is culture. It isn't a 'thing' that exists in a static, fully formed-from-birth mode. It's an ongoing, evolving reality.

The Belgian example wasn't to suggest a split because of their language; after all, Canada could do the same if one were to agree with you. My point was that because half of the Belgians speak French does not mean that they have any wish to merge with France or that they consider themselves 'the same as' the French.

Therefore, Syrians do not consider themselves 'the same as' the Lebanese. Are you aware of their current anger against each other for Syria's attempt to intrude on Lebanese affairs?

Nations and cultures don't emerge fully formed from the earth; your opinions suggest that you think they do.

As for the Palestinians supplying their own economy etc - that would be accomplished if Israel would first acknowledge the right and existence of a Palestinian state. So far, they haven't. This would mean they'd have to move their settlements out of the West Bank and end the occuption. This would include allowing the Palestinians access to water to irrigate their farms; currently, such water access is given only to the settlers. That includes road access, air access etc.

As for your argument that first the Palestinians would have to 'stop hating Israel and bombing Israel' - that's a Catch 22. As long as Israel refuses to recognize a Palestinian state, maintains its 250 plus settlements in the West Bank, controls the water etc - well, the anger is going to continue. What puzzles me is why you think that these people shouldn't be angry!

We certainly think that the Caledonia people should be angry at the natives who have moved in and claimed their land and houses. Why shouldn't the Palestinians be angry?

shaken - thanks for your support but I'm a bit puzzled by your comments. You mention 'citizenship' and an 'oath of loyalty'. Surely you don't mean citizenship within Israel and loyalty to Israel? Israel doesn't want the Palestinian population as citizens! There's almost 4 million of them in total, and 6 million Israeli; Israel's specific self-definition is a Jewish majority. The population growth in Gaza and the West Bank arabs is three times that of Israel - and if they became Israeli citizens, the Muslim population would outnumber the Jewish population.

Canadian Sentinel - who has said that it is 'racist' and 'illegal' for Israel to build a wall? I didn't read those comments here. My criticism of their wall would refer only to those parts that extend the 1967 borders.

My criticism of Israel is that they must realistically recognize that the Palestinians are there; that no amount of wishing will make them disappear, and that a two-state solution is the only answer.

alain, what's your point? At one time, there wasn't an American nationality; or a Canadian nationality. So? Does that mean these two countries have no right, now, to exist as nations?

There never was a 'Palestinian' nation; there was a territory in the ME, which was called Palestine, which was ruled by the Byzantines and various other countries including Persia, Egypt, the Ottomans and the British. The British referred to the area as Palestine and its occupants as Palestinians. This definition did not refer only to Jewish people there.

What is your point? Surely you can't be saying that unless you, as a people, have a particular national name since time began, that you can't form a nation! That would exclude just about every nation on this planet!

What I don't see, on this thread, is any attempt to deal with the realities of the situation. The point is - these people are there. What is going to be done about them? Telling them to stop hating is useless. Strangely, I don't see anyone saying that Israel must stop building settlements! But that isn't the point. Since neither side's population is going to disappear, then, the only solution that I can think of, is a two-state solution.

ET, with respect to your 2:51 comments, fundamentally you are correct. There are indeed great differences between the people we know as Palestinian and those we know today as Jordanians. Their ethnic background is entirely different. Palestine was largely a rural agricultural society. The Transjordan by contrast, what we now today call Jordan, was primarily Bedouin in its makeup, primarily nomadic and having very little in common with the Palestinians. Also remember that the addition of the West Bank to Jordan was a remnant of the 1948 war. The UN decreed that Palestine be partitioned into two states, one Zionist and the other Palestinian. However, there was no partition, there was a war between the Jewish settlers and the three surrounding Islamic nations, Syria, Transjordan and Egypt. The boundaries of the West Bank were established by the lines of the ceasefire in 1949 and have relatively little in common with the original UN demarcation line as consequences on the battlefield trumped decisions from the UN conference table. No Palestinian state was formed because the Arab states chose to resist the partition rather than agree to it. The West Bank and Gaza boundaries were simply the rump territories left in possession of the Jordanian and Egyptian armies, respectively. Historic note: Transjordan was the name given to the region by the British military occupation in 1919 as the region on the east side of the Jordan River. Administratively in the Ottoman Empire it, like Palestine and Lebanon, was part of Syria and hence high diverse. The seeming similarity of Arab peoples is an illusion. Winston Churchill illustrated it best in his description of Britain and the US; "Two peoples divided by a common language."

This just goes to show that there is a pecking order amongst Arabs. Seems that the Palestinians are at the bottom of that pecking order.

So, the jews are not the only ones trying to keep them out of their territory. This just goes to show that the Palestinian issue is a red herring when it comes to the terrorists' rational. Interesting. They are fenced in on the Egyption side and the Israel side. That leaves just themselves. Hum.

ET said, "terrence - I stand by my comments to you." Big whoop, ET, big whoop! Your emotional diatribe was juvenile, and you know it (unless you are still over reacting emotionally; you really do not take criticism will do you).

You really should read and TRY to understand comments before you over react to them, ET (and you have done so with lots of them today, not just mine). Who knows, ET may actually learn something! Imagine that, someone teaching ET something. But, ET will NOT have that!

I suppose I must be a slow learner, for I should have known from past experience that you ET are incapable of dealing with facts - yes documented facts - when the topic is Israel.

What is not acceptable is the revising of history, the distortion and twisting of facts. Perhaps this is due to some kind of moral equivalence, I really have no idea. While you can use facts and logic in commenting on other topics, you have proven yourself once again incapable of informed debate on the subject of Israel. Rather sad comment on your part.

Melanie Phillips weighs in with a priceless blog posting: Hamas: 2, world: nil.

My criticism of Israel is that they must realistically recognize that the Palestinians are there; that no amount of wishing will make them disappear, and that a two-state solution is the only answer.

ET, you have it backwards. The problem has been not the Israelis rejecting a two state solution, but, time after time the Palistinians walking away from any accords that recognized Israel's right to exist.

I don't think that any group that by majority consent which fashions a government out of terrorists deserves a state. Statehood implies more than defined borders. You need to have respect for your neighbors, the ability to build an infrastructure, a civil society that doesn't settle disputes internally and externally with murder and mayhem. 60 years of international aid, oh, and lots of money and services from Israel too, and what have they done with it? Nothing. There is no modern state to make out of that mess.

1.7 million Israelis are Arabs, 25% of the population. That they aren't a problem there is telling. I presume most of them are grateful to be living in a civil society away from the perpetual thuggery and zero opportunities.

I agree entirely with Alain at January 23, 2008 5:41 PM, as far as it pertains to today’s post.

ET is often very informative, rational and intelligent, at least, on topics that do not relate to Israel. But she has come unhinged and hysterical in this post. ET’s over reaction may be an anti-Israel bias on her part. I don’t recall seeing her comments on other Israeli related posts (I don’t read everything on SDA).

Unfortunately, it is quite sad to see someone hit the emotional bottom, as ET has today. I used to think her comments were worth reading. That clearly does NOT apply to Israeli related items, if today’s post is indicative. Alain says it is characteristic of her; so it may well be true. Sad, if it is true.

It occurred to me that this is not the real “ET”, but maybe someone is using her initials. But, the writing seems to be close to other stuff ET writes, so maybe it is her. Mores the pity!

I believe most of the Isreali Arabs are Christians. .

cgh - yes, the peoples are quite different. It is simply impossible to reduce people to a homogeneous type. That's why I disagree with those on this thread who call them 'all arabs'. You can't reduce people to such a homogeneity. Even peoples who are seemingly of the same linguistic background, religion, ethnicity, will over time, establish strong different sociocultural identities. This is due to their local realities - the realities of their ecological environment and their local economy.

fiumara - yes, you are absolutely right, there is a 'pecking order' among the arabs. And among all peoples, after all. The Palestinians were indeed consider 'ignorant and illiterate peasants' by the other Arab nations. They were considered really, really low! They didn't and don't want them. The Islamic fascists, on the other hand, are using them as a front, as an excuse for their terrorism. In reality, the Islamic fascists don't give a damn about the Palestinians.

terrence - nothing that I am writing is written in an emotional manner. And, most certainly not hysterical. There is no need to weep for me. I mean what I say - and I'm quite rational about my opinions.

The fact that I don't agree with you, and others, on this topic, doesn't mean that I am irrational. Or emotional. You are rejecting the very basis of free speech, which is, the right to dissent. And, this dissent doesn't mean that ONE person is rational, and the other person is emotional/hysterical. Both can be rational. They can still disagree.

You haven't provided me with any data that I can accept to change my view. What you are doing instead, is simply attacking me as an 'emotional' and 'hysteric'. How about just dealing with the issues?
Same with Alain - he's just attacking me personally. How about the issues? Alain, I've asked you a number of questions and raised a number of issues. You don't answer them; now, you are just declaring that I'm wrong. That's hardly an argument.

penny - what Accords about recognizing Israel's right to exist are you talking about? To my knowledge, the PLO (and Arafat, corrupt and evil man that he was) DID acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But Israel does not acknowledge the right of a Palestinian state. So, what Accords are you talking about?

I don't think that you can define the 4 million Palestinians as 'all terrorists'. And, I don't think that there is a preliminary status of behaviour, a check-list of all potential citizens, that can be carried out before 'allowing them' to become a nation.

Furthermore, I don't think you are aware of the history of the area. It is very difficult to build a society when you are denied the basic economic infrastructure, such as land, water, regular transport to markets; when you are denied the rights to exercise political authority.

As for their current degeneration into internal 'civil war', that's frankly to be expected. It happens in just about every collective that is a 'group' but without power to affect the lives of its population. The group turns on itself. That's a psychological truism.

Again, no-one seems willing, or able, to take up the issues. The basic issues. The view here is that one must be totally on-side with Israel, and totally against the Evil Palestinians (who are also deemed not to have any valid existence). If you criticize Israel, as I do, the conclusion is that I am 'emotional' or 'hysterical' or..whatever.

What about the issues? How does one deal with the reality of 4 million Palestinians who are not going to dissolve into the night, who are not going to be accepted as citizens of Israel?

You can, of course, continue to hate them, to declare that 'until they ALL (4 million) behave, and until there is NO argument heard'...But that solves nothing other than one's own erroneous morality.

What's the solution? I think it has to be a two state solution. That means some very hard and difficult choices for Israel. It means getting out, completely out, of the West Bank. It means acknowledging Palestine as a state, not a set of municipalities. It means some form of financial compensation for lost lands, farms and homes. The first two, frankly, would be the most difficult.

On the Arab State side, it means that they too, must acknowledge Palestine as a nation. Heh. I wonder, I wonder, if they are really prepared to do that. That would be yet another democratic Muslim state in their midst. I wonder if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria - are prepared for that.

And the Islamic fascists? They have no more 'front guy' excuse of Palestine for their criminal attacks against the West. They won't like that either.

Now- is anyone here prepared to debate these issues? Or is it just the usual dead-end mantra of - Love Israel and Hate Arabs?

*
et once again phones home... hat would be accomplished if Israel would
first acknowledge the right and existence of a Palestinian state"

that's a good one... you gonna try tell us about the israeli vow to wipe
palestinians off the map?

methinks your agenda is totally bass-ackwards... but hey, you're obviously
not let facts get in the way of your martyrdom narrative.

*

Avoiding mentioning the Egyptian wall all this time, while mentioning the Israel wall every chance they got only confirms the Main Stream Media is anti-Israel.

CBC Radio broadcast an interview with someone who says Israel built the wall. I cannot confirm the validity of that claim.

If only the Palestinians accepted the UN partition of the land between the Med, Red, and Dead Seas. Everything would be hunky-dorry. Not!

The victim role does NOT suit you, ET. You have demonstrated repeatedly on this post that you do NOT read what others write; you simply react, and react emotionally.

Please put aside your latest straw man (love Israel and hate Arabs) and TRY to understand what so many others have written.

BTW, it is nothing short of ridiculous of you to suggest that I am “rejecting the very basis of free speech, which is, the right to dissent”. I know this is hard for you to understand, so I will spell it out - at no time did I say you had no right to say what you have said. I am simply expressing MY right to disagree with you, my right to dissent. Can you see that? That you actually wrote such drivel about “free speech” is yet another example of your emotionality. Please take a deep breath and TRY to see what so many others on this post have been saying. Please stop re-acting, and stop putting up bogus straw men.

Another palestinian infrastructure project-somebody built something so let us destroy it, then we can distribute our garbage on the other side as well.

What a profoundly destructive mob, that prefers to live in squalor and collect handouts. Is it any wonder that surrounding arab states do not want to absorb this population in their vast unpopulated geographical areas?

Here is a good opportunity for the Israelis, when all the Gazans are over in Egypt , they can grab Gaza back, rebuild the wall, and leave the Gazans stuck in the Sinai, it is a nice big place they will love it.

One of the confusions I see in these comments is our 'western' understanding of 'nation' versus the Middle East understanding of ‘nation’. In the Middle East ethnicity plays a much more dominate role than geography.

A family I know moved from Lebanon into a country in North Africa (they have the documents to prove it). 600 years later they are still considered Lebanese. I know that many Iranians resent Islam because it is Arabic in origin and they are Persian. I have heard that the Palestinians are not considered Arab by their Arab neighbours.

Palestinians are considered Philistine, a European not Middle Eastern people. They share the same religion as their Arab neighbours but when push comes to shove the Palestinians don't have any family support.

ET: In your 6:52 post you've diagnosed what the solution will be, namely a two-state solution. It's not new and we've seen this coming as early as the Oslo Accords in the early '90s. There are many mutual grievances, but two of the many outstanding ones boil down to this: the Palestinian radicals keep lobbing various attacks against the civilian infrastructure of Israel; and Israel, through walls and settlements, shrinks the size of any future Palestinian nation, making the Palestinian demand for 'right of return' that much more unattainable (even if it was desirable). I'm not arguing which of the two is right, simply noting the clashes.

You as a highly relevant question, what's the solution to which I would add when will it happen. The answer I suspect is only when both sides have suffered enough that they are willing to suppress their own fanatics to agree on terms. Just as the Palestinians are plagued by irreconcilables such as Hamas, Israel has its own version as well. After all, the Oslo Accords fell apart in some measure because a religious Orthodox fanatic assassinated Israel's prime minister. That assassination was far from the only cause; Arafat's deliberate return to the Intifada as a way of getting negotiating leverage against Israel has probably inflicted more misery on the Palestinans as a policy than just about anything else. As long as the polarization continues, there will be no peace.

It is my understanding that Israel built the wall along the Egyptian border with Egypt's approval.

Not saying that this is an Israeli apartheid wall or anything, just getting the facts straight.

Israel is now saying that maintenance of the border is up to the Egyptian military and they do not care too much what Egypt does. I imagine Egypt will be on their best behavior, they have been taking a decidedly more anti-western stance since the NIE report was released.

terrence - you don't bring up any dissenting arguments with me; you just declare that I am 'emotional and hysteric'. Or, you make juvenile comments about 'the evil jooos'. That's my point - that's not an argument. How about dealing with the issues? And no, I'm not defining myself as a victim. I'm arguing against your failure to provide reasoned and data based arguments.

Joe - Palestinians are very low in the status level of Middle Eastern arabs. I don't know whether they are not considered 'arabs'; I only know that they are considered 'at the bottom' of the status hierarchy.

And yes, you are right; nationality, per se, doesn't play a major role in the ME. That's because it has been, for thousands of years, run by tribalism. I prefer the term 'tribal' to 'ethnicity'. They've never moved into the political organization of the nation-state.

Tribalism means that kinship and family plays the major organizational political and economic role. So, when people here argue that there never was a Palestinian nation, it's a meaningless argument. The idea of the 'nation-state' was a recent one, emerging in Europe in the 12-14th c. In the ME, the system has run by tribalism.

cgh - right, you've got both sides fighting against each other. You've got the militants in the Palestinian side, who by now, have only one image of an Israeli (the Evil Ones); and you have the settlers on the Israeli side, who also have only one image of a Palestinian (the Non-Chosen ones). I'm suggesting that these two perceptions can never be reconciled. But, they can be reduced in political authority. The 'middle set' on both sides, Palestinian and Israeli, can, I suggest, get along quite well.

Remember that Oslo was not about recognizing a Palestinian state. It was only about allowing municipal self-government in various Palestinian towns. That's all. Israel retained control of water, borders, roads, airspace, resources etc. So, it wasn't about a Palestinian state.

I think Arafat was right to reject it - but, I think even IF it had been recognition of a state, I suspect he still would have rejected it. Arafat didn't want a Palestinian state; he'd lose power.

However, given the two realities - and the realities are not the emotional hatreds between the fanatics on both sides, but the actual population base on both sides - what can be done?

6 million Israeli, 4 million Palestinians. It has to be a two state solution. BUT, this means that Israel, in particular, has to give up that West Bank and its private control of the water.

It also means that the other Arab nations will have to acknowledge the Palestinians (whom they sneer at in reality) as a legitimate people. And, as a democracy. That's going to be hard.

James - yes, I can imagine that Israel doesn't care what Egypt does, as long as it ensures that the goods coming into Gaza from Egypt are not military.

ET, yes I agree that the formal terms of Oslo were a municipal agreement principally. I think you will also agree that all parties understood that if things worked out it would lead to greater autonomy later on. Oslo was after all only the first step, not the final defined end state. This is why I think Arafat was wrong. He was doing it, not to defend the rights of Palestinians but to maintain his own hold over the PLO which had been slipping during and after the exile in Tunis.

And yes, large parts of both did get along after a fashion prior to the Intifada. The Palestinian territories' economies were tightly bound up with Israel's.

One thing that cannot be forgotten in all this is foreign involvement. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are to a very large extent organizations supported with money, weapons, organization and training by Iran. Until the foreign influence is diminished, the prospects for peace will likely remain remote.

ET says: "It also means that the other Arab nations will have to acknowledge the Palestinians (whom they sneer at in reality) as a legitimate people. And, as a democracy."

Shouldn't this read, "it also means that the Arab nations will have to acknowledge the Jews (whom they sneer at in reality) as a legitimate people. And, as a democracy."

Why, if Arabs can live in Israel, are Jews not allowed to live in the West Bank? What is wrong with some Jews settling there? How is it any different from Jews settling anywhere?

Have you ever been to Judea? (West Bank). I don't think that you could call the Judean desert particulary fertile.

Are Arabs in Israel allowed to increase in number (ie by making babies?)? Why aren't Jews allowed to grow in number in the West Bank?

If the Arabs had accepted the partition of 1948 they could be celebrating their 60th year of statehood. The Jews accepted this partition, the Arabs did not and the rest is history.

Why does the existence of a "state of Palestine" require that no Jews live there? Why must they get out? Hebron, Jerico, Shechem, Bethleham are all important to Jews - why would the new democratic state of Palestine not allow any Jews to live in it?

ET, I am sorry I not part of your echo chanber. But, given your complete failure to read and UNDERSTAND so many commenters, I really do not want to be in your closed group.

I am sure you are NOT aware, but it is YOU who does not repsond to what SO many others have written; you do not argue, you simply react, and/or raise bogus straw men.

You should have a close look at your projectionas onto SO many others in this post. You have turned what could have been an interesting discussion into an emational rective farce. You have some good points, but you bury them in so much reactive rubbish, it is not worth the bother to read any more.

Hopefully, on other posts, you will revert to your reasonable form.

cgh - right, I agree with you about the foreign involvement. And of course, Arafat's agenda was strictly about his own personal power. He didn't want to lose that power in a Palestinian state.

ex-liberal - no, I meant what I said about the other arab states not wanting and not being willing to recognize a Palestinian state. I think that the Palestinians are always viewed, by arabs, as the lowest of the low..and hardly 'high enough in nobility' to have their own nation.

And you are not being exactly open about the issue of the West Bank. Jewish settlers living in the West Bank, with the West Bank fully part of a Palestinian state, with those settlers under the authority of a Palestinian state - is quite different from Jewish settlers living in the West Bank with the West Bank settlers under the authority of Israel. I'm sure you can acknowledge the difference.

I'm most certainly not claiming that a Palestinian state need not contain Jews! I'm not talking about the religious identity of the citizens of a state, and I suspect you know that. I'm talking about the governmental authority over the land and citizenship of its population.

As I said, it's a completely different situation if the West Bank were under the sovereign authority of a Palestinian state, and any Jewish people living there, would be, as Palestinian citizens, under that govt's authority. If the current settlers don't accept that, they'd have to leave.

You know, if a Palestinian state ever comes to pass, and I think it's the only solution, I suspect that the closest economic and even social alliances of that state, will be with Israel. Not with its Arab neighbours.

As I said, the other arab nations view Palestinians as nonentities - and that's an old, old tribal opinion. Plus, Palestine has, economically, little to offer to those other states in resources or services. So, I would see that the two states, Israel and Palestine could develop close economic ties - in fact, that would be the only route for Palestine. And for Israel.

ET...have you gone Islamic in your old age?? Usually your posts are enlightening,but recently,I have seen a disturbing pattern emerge in your pro terrorist bias.Somebody getting to you? Or have you been a plant all along? Nobody, BUT nobody except the Palis are responsible for the sh*t they are now in.Maybe it's about time the Jooossss adopted a little SAS warfare..i.e...to get rid of a threat you must cut off not only its head,but its feet,which means everybody from daddy on down to little Betsy-Sue.

There is one other solution to the Palestinian issue. Let all the Palestinians become Jews. It may be more difficult to attain but it would likely bring a more lasting peace.

I would have suggested conversion the other way but Islam is not a peaceful religion.

Justthinkin - that's very unfair to say that ET has a "pro-terrorist bias". We may have different and strong opinions on Israel and the Palistinians relationship, but, she has never minimized, endorsed or been less than strongly condemning of terrorism. Nor has she denied or excused Palistinian terrorism.

I wonder why ET is posting here? Seems to me she'd be much happier at Stormfront.

ET: You may in your earlier remarks have hit upon an interesting aspect to the problem. Israel is the only western constituted democracy in the region, making it a very different form of government to traditional patterns in the Middle East. But there's one interesting feature it has which is not common to all other western democracies but which it does share with some non-democratic regimes in the Middle East. It has included religion as a definition of citizenship. There are very good reasons for Israel to be constituted in that fashion, however, this means that Israel has a greater difficulty than many in incorporating citizens from other backgrounds or in reaching understandings over disputed territory. This too is not a new topic and has been discussed extensively within Israel, but I am unsure of the degree to which it has been raised in the context of an overall agreement with the Palestinians.

It's late, and I will follow up tomorrow if you are interested.

Since we're trying to have an intelligent discussion here, perhaps we can both agree to ignore the late night trolls.

Yes, ET and cgh, please do continue your discussion. I'm afraid I don't have much to add, but I do appreciate the information. It seems to me refreshingly free of bias, either way, and sincere in it's intent to enlighten those of us willing to keep an open mind.

We could use more of that around here.

Hi Jimbo. Not really trying to sort out solutions just yet, at least on my part. Just an exploration so far to try to define the problem. Fact is, the ME is something that has defied solution by politicians of all stripes going back at least two millenia.

Well, that's it for me tonight.

"and when the govt of this new land makes it quite clear that, due to your religion, you are no longer welcome as a citizen."

I hate to pile on here ET, but this isn't true. The last I read 17% of Israel's population aren't just Arabs, they're Muslims, with a few Druze and Christians.

And why don't you ask the Islamofascist Saudi Arabia about their banning of all Jews, including no Jewish visitors, to this day?

As well, your repeated claim that the Palestinians are severly anti-Semetic because of land grievances is false. The Islamic ideology pre-dates this mess. It is the Islamic ideology that is fundamentally racist and anti-Semetic.

Along with several "Jews are the sons of apes and pigs." verses in the Quran, the aHadith and Sira are rife with Jew hatred and mass killing.

"Kill the Jews wherever you find them." - Mo (Hadiths)

Or, you could both continue the conversation on one of your own blogs.
Jimbo - really? "refreshingly free of bias"? Did you mean all the posters, or only ET and cgh?
Having an open mind is one thing, but do some research on your own.
ET and cgh are not the final authorities on this subject.

Yeah Irwin but Saudi Arabia is an equal hatred country. They even ban some Islamic sects.

Why do all discussions of the two state solution include a condition that Israel/Jews must not have any settlements in the West Bank? What kind of logic is that? Surely a two state solution would include the right of Jews to live in Hebron, Jerico, Bethleham, etc.

By the way any one can become an Israeli citizen if you live there for a certain number of years. You don't have to be a practicing Jew to become a citizen right away - you just have to have one Jewish grandparent (recent history led Jews to this)

And the water issue? ET makes it sound like Israel controls/keeps water. hmm, not so sure: check this http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/water.html

James, 7:46 P.M.

The Israelis did build the wall during their occupation of Gaza, but I doubt that they consulted the Egyptians. The wall, as far as I know, is entirely on Gazan territory - not right on the border and therefore none of Egypt's business. OOPS!

Since Hamas came to power, the Egyptians have had an agreement with Israel to prevent Gazans from travelling back and forth, in order to control the flow of weapons and explosives into Gaza. Since yesterday's mass invasion, that arrangement seems to be dead as a doornail.

Brilliantly argued, ET. The trainers have the stretchers out and are now carrying your faux-opponents off the canvas and out of the ring. Not to say that everyone was disagreeing with you of course, many were not, nor to say that many who make non-faux counter-arguments don't make good arguments.

And not to say that I agree with everything you've argued ~ I don't even know enough about many of the details to be able to know whether to agree or not. Probably you've got at least one detail wrong, none of us are perfect.

Nevertheless, I think your overall model of the nature of societies in general, the current dynamics of the I&P societies in particular (where current includes the effect of history but does not focus on historic details that are by now irrelevant to or subsumed by the effect), and the realpolitik issues that must be addressed by the global system of states in regard to this problem, is generally correct.

CHG, who makes a number of good arguments, suggests that the problem will only be solved when both sides have suffered enough. Perhaps, 'though it does seem like there's more than enough suffering going on already, at least among the non-power seeking non-militant citizens on both sides.

Perhaps, on the other hand, the problem will not be solved until the global system of states decides that the problem has become too risky for it to allow the problem to continue. As long as it's not, shysters in the global system of states will succeed in actually promoting the conflict for personal advancement.

If my argument in the previous paragraph is true, then it may be the case that the solution to the problem is closer to hand than we might otherwise suspect, in the sense that nuclear weapons proliferation has become a major strategic threat to the power-brokers in the global system of states, and the mitigation of that threat may include some agreed or forced resolution to the problem.

To be clear, I don't know what to do next, and I don't know how it's going to turn out. The current situation, all in, appears largely intractable at least in terms of current best practice. The two-state dance is probably the only reasonable approach right now, realpolitik-wise. Hank argues in favour of this approach and related realpolitik issues, his approach which I largely agree with, in this Charlie Rose interview of Henry Kissinger:

video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6468270690914589463

Some radical development might change the I&P situation, or maybe not; it might go on for a long time (for some value of long). Personally, I try to avoid predicting the future states of chaotic dynamic systems.

Quite right Vitruvius. The nuclear issue has always weighed in here. After all, it was in 1973 that the US and USSR had to find a solution after their confrontation and the recognition that Israel itself had nuclear weapons and would in desperation use them. Given the strong interest that both great powers had in finding a solution, the current impasse shows just how intractable it can be. I think we all understand that the two-state solution is the only real way this can be solved, but like you and ET I think its possibility is purely speculative at this time.

Look, as long as the Islamic trilogy is the foundation for Jew hatred - commanded, rewarded and sanctified by allah and flawlessly demonstrated by his prophet - there will not be a solution to the so-called Palestinian question. Or any other question, as it has to do with Islam.

Based on the trilogy, Muslims are taught from childhood that they have an allah given obligation to hate the Jews. And if allah is for it, who's against it?

Holy commissions are a more powerful and mitigating factor than land grievances.

Re: "Jimbo - really? "refreshingly free of bias"? Did you mean all the posters, or only ET and cgh?
Having an open mind is one thing, but do some research on your own.
ET and cgh are not the final authorities on this subject."

They may not be the final authorities, but they certainly come off as credible, reasonable, and unbiased. There are other posters I'd put in the same boat, and I appreciate being privy to their debates.

I find it refreshing, because there are many other posters whose views I consider very biased, unreasonable, closeminded, and sometimes downright kooky, like Irwin "Crazy" Daisy, to use one example. Every post, the same general message, ad nauseum, scouring the earth, and the internet, for any shred of a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims. Irwin - we get it.

As for doing my own research, I always appreciate being aimed in the right direction. I'm usually very busy, putting money back into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.

Appreciate that Jimbo. The ME situation is too difficult to solve for any human. I did find a couple things ET said showed her interpretation of facts and events (I won't call it prejudice) steered away from the Israelis' cause. A few others noticed that also. A caution sign is always raised in my mind when I read that they should give up land.
Since the goal of the Palestine authority is to eradicate Israel, it is hard to imagine a two-state solution.
Since 1978, I've read so much and heard so many speakers on this subject that it would be hard to condense it.
I could suggest two people to you. One is a former Muslim now a Christian: Faisal Malick. He is living in Canada. The other is Joel Rosenberg, a Messianic Jew. There are others, but you could begin with them.
It's fascinating, and I encourage you to read what these two have written.

I too steered away from taking up the Israelis' cause in my comment, Gerry. To the degree that I takes sides on this matter, I'm on the Israelis side. However, if one wishes to analyze a situation and understand it, which is usually a good idea before taking up causes, then while one is doing the analysis it's best to not take up causes, as that often tends to cloud the analysis. It's like begging the question.

A good deal of non-light-generating heat in this thread was between the activists and the analyzers. It doesn't need to be this way, yet we often find that all it takes is one or two who don't understand that to set things off.

Thanks for the direction "gerry at January 24, 2008 5:59 PM" . I'll check out your suggestions when I'm at home.

I'd have to agree with Vitruvius, and admit that, generally, I side with the Israelis. It seems sometimes, to quote someone whose name I can't remember, that "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." If another country was lobbing rockets into my area, I'd tend to be a tad on the aggressive side.

However, I can understand the plight of the Pal's too, especially if my children were being starved through a blockade of sorts. Regardless of root causes, I'd be most angry with whoever was maintaining the blockade. When you're hungry, it's amazing how little or nothing else matters but food.

The problems seem insurmountable at times. But them, I remember thinking that about South Africa.

The blockade is in response to the rocket attacks but they allowed some food and fuel in for one day, after the U.N. warned that international food aid may have to be suspended by the wkend.
The Israeli PM said he would not allow a humanitarian crisis to develop. But he said Gaza's residents won't be able to live a "pleasant and comfortable life" as long as southern Israel is under rocket attack.
Still the attacks continue, which indicate the true enemies of the Palestinians are their fellow Arabs, as ET also said.
I choose sources that give a true picture from both sides, fair and balanced.
Like you I wouldn't want to see my family suffering from an embargo, but I also wouldn't want to live with my family in the area being bombarded. It is a very frightening situation.

"like Irwin "Crazy" Daisy, to use one example. Every post, the same general message, ad nauseum, scouring the earth, and the internet, for any shred of a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims."

Jimbo, the leftist in Conservative clothing. Are you pining for a job at the HRC? I'm sure you'd fit right in.

'Jimbo' (of all juvenile nick names available, why this handle?) doesn't have the intellectual ability to post a rational, researched opinion or counter argument. He has posted on this blog that his feelings trump facts. And when researched facts don't agree with his feelings, he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

Remind anybody of a certain political type?

"The same general message" that you still don't get is that it's the Islamic ideology, bonehead. It's not about 'those generally not like him, primarily Muslims."

And it's not about looking for a "reason to hate," based on anything found on the internet. My opinion is based on the exact textual evidence found in the Quran, Hadith and Sira, proven by the actions of Muhammad and his followers.

And yours?

"The problems seem insurmountable at times. But them (sic), I remember thinking that about South Africa."

And what's your knowledgeable, fact based 'opinion' about South Africa now, Jimboob?

"Nobody has a right to an opinion unless they are in possession of the evidence." T.S. Eliot

No. Clause 2 of the Charter clearly gives Canadians the right to opinion without possession of evidence. It is you, my dear Mr. Daisy, who is pining for a job on the HRCs. Moreover, sir, I know from discussions here and at other sites that your characterization of Jimbo is simply wrong. In other words, you have formed an opinion without sufficient evidence. And I will fight for your right to do so, with one proviso: I will not fight for you when you deny that right to others.

Entirely correct, Vitruvius and well said. Jimbo approached this topic with an inquiring mind, and all he got from some was abuse and denial of his right to have information to form an opinion.

Jimbo, none of us engaged in this debate, pretends to have answers. As you correctly noted, we are trying to define the problem. To do that requires a level of inquiry for which slogans are worse than useless. You started with the most useful statement of all of us, noting the limited knowledge we have. Absolutely correct. Dropping preconceptions about anything is the necessary first step towards trying to find solutions to problems. Don't be bashful; join in, because different perspectives always help. Your reference to South Africa was the one hopeful thought anyone has expressed in this thread.

Welcome to the René Descartes club, ladies & gentlemen ;-)

The wall is 4 m high above its base. It has been well-known about for many years. If you don't know about it, then stop professing your ignorance to all and sundry.

Vitruvius,

Not that I need to explain myself, however, Jimbo continually and purposely, misrepresents and misconstrues my opinion, attempting to slur my posts as bigotry. I then feel I must correct the slur by reposting the same point again, ad infinitum.

I have made it very clear and supported my posts with direct facts and evidence that it is the Islamic ideology as expressed in the trilogy that is foundationally violent and the impetus and justification for Islamofascist violence. Not Muslims.

Yet, his first post on this thread began with, "like Irwin "Crazy" Daisy, to use one example. Every post, the same general message, ad nauseum, scouring the earth, and the internet, for any shred of a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims."

This willfull smearing is insulting and irritating.

Is this the type of thing you agree with?

No, Daisy, Jimbo's first comment above at 11:04 PM on the 23rd did not mention you, he simply asked ET and CGH to continue their discussion. Moreover, it was you, Daisy, who first called Jimbo "al-Jimbo", on another thread some weeks ago, in response to a perfectly reasonable opinion he posted, thus misrepresenting and misconstruing Jimbo's opinion. It is you, Daisy, who I find to be willfully insulting and irritating, it is you who I find to be a bigot, it is you who behaves like a sociopath toward those who don't completely agree with you.

Those are the types of things I do not agree with. However, since Kate asks us not to engage in flame wars here, and since I think everyone is entitled to their opinion (modulo Kate's rules) I usually simply ignore you (unless explicitly asked), which I will now return to doing.

It seems you suffer from selective reading. Jimbo did purposely misrepresent my opinion, as he's done frequently, in order to make a bigotry claim "a reason to hate those not like him, primarily Muslims." This is completely untrue, and a typical leftist hush tactic. In fact, other than fanatics involved in the promotion and acts of violence, I don't blame Muslims. I've always maintained that Muslims are the first victims.

My opinion and many others including Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, etc, is that the Islamic ideology is foundationally violent as expressed and proven in the trilogy and this is the basis for Islamic extremism.

So, it's interesting to know that exposure and criticism of an ideology is branded as bigotry by some, like yourself. I'm surprised you haven't called it racism.

Furthermore, as much as I recall, Jimbo's "perfectly reasonable opinion," was based on knowing a couple of nice Muslims and his feelings, as he stated. He also stated that he had no knowledge of the texts, yet still attacked my opinion, attempting to misconstrue it as bigotry and offering no rational counter argument or evidence to support anything.

However, who cares, since you seem to enjoy attacking those who have done nothing to you - ignore away, it's no great loss.

The last word is yours, Irwin ~ I wish you no ill will.
In the end, it's up to the readers to decide.
Thanks for putting up with us, Kate.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k