Propaganda Pig - thought you'd been put out to pasture. Benny Morris eh? Now look, you're getting me a bit confused here. I once quoted Benny to Big Ted, in his earlier article, An Enterprise of Fools, and before you knew it Big Ted was telling me: "...the scholarship of Benny Morris has been ripped to shreds by Ephraim [sic] Karsh"! Now I thought that was a bit harsh, but he then went on to say that "Ephraim" (sic) had "eviscerated Benny's "theses". Eviscerated, PP! So tell us, PP, end the confusion, is Benny IN or OUT?

A well balanced in the Washington Post looks at the conflict from both sides:

"It's been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.


Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support."

Read on at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801388.html

I would be interested to hear from other posters their opinions on the conclusion to this article.

Interesting article Scout.

By extrapolation, the Aboriginals of Australia have the same right to ‘recolonise’ the continent and force out the ‘white man’ into enclaves, etc. - as would the North American Indian (and the South American!)have the right to do the same to ‘white man’ on those continents.

I wonder if, down the path of time, when the Caucasian has lost it’s sway of this world, some other State will assist these two peoples to achieve this in 'their national interests'?

Makes us whites think about things a little perhaps? Maybe should make all persons desiring power think a little perhaps?

It is fine to notice that among discussants at least Mr Reason demonstrates some understanding of the issues already highlighted with my posts. Of course, no reference to my mailings as biologically inferiors non-Anglos AND in this part of an English Dominion have not been supposed to even a slight sign of any intellectual / professional activities but serving a higher race, as a British subject of an Australian residency, Strewh, and alike factually express with their mail on these Australian forum pages. Do not vast your time, Mr B.Pig, he et all understand you perfectly which just irritates them more.

Long life to Israel, a place the Jews can stay on their own.

And “Palestinians”, that is the Arabs from Israel, are welcome: the more they have been to Australia or other still English feudal enclaves, the bigger a nonsense of a local Anglo-racist reality to be pushed to a positive change long overdue.

Does anyone have any idea about what MichaelK wrote means?

Eisen puts a Jewish perspective to this of course because he is trying to see something of both sides through a biased prism.

It is interesting when he talks about ‘threats’ and says that ‘what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself,’ admitting that there is no true threat in reality.

He displays the weakness of his case for the Muslim side by not talking about Palestinians, but instead citing the killing of American peacemakers as well as American soldiers in Iraq as evidence of a lack of perspective ….. completely ignoring the fact that America is an invader and brutal occupier and any American, or American ally for that matter will be targeted.

Can anyone here say that the French did not have a right to target the non-military Nazis who came to create ‘peace’ after invasion and occupation? I doubt it. Nor would any American choose non-military targets if they were occupied, after all, they happily targeted non-military personnel when they were fighting the English and that was not an occupation per se: At this point Reise becomes not only hypocritical but tasteless.

He tries to equate the resorting to violence of a people who have been dispossessed and who are living under occupation with the resorting to violence of a people and a State who were responsible for dispossession and who use violence to maintain an occupation and a colonisation programme which is turning Palestine into a series of concentration camps. It is a farce.

To be continued.