Mr Kennelly is even handed in his appraisal but will no doubt expect an anti-semitic slap over the knuckles for a critique that challenges the excesses of zionism. I too am amazed at the recent Israeli announcement of new settlements - not expansions of existing ones - and by the double standards of the US and allies over their reaction to Hamas's democratic win. To be sure a new governemnt should be held accountable to a previous administration's actions specifically recognition of recognition Israeli's right to exist. But this really was a loaded gun at the head of Hamas given the abject humiliations heaped on the Palestinians during the long intifada years. Outside of the US, the pathetic denial of funding to Hamas was either very bad diplomacy or a realpolitic assessment of the chances for a comprehensive settlement, two state solution or otherwise. For ordinary Israelis it must be a bleak realisation that their leadership's hardline responses have brought them nothing and that now with the imminent collapse of the US Iraqi campaign it is little wonder that rumours of an IDF attack on Iranian nuclear sites is being heard. They are afterall playing for very high stakes. Their oer-the-top reaction in Lebanon mid 2006 was just an example

Abraham Lincoln: … Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. From the September 11, 1858 Speech at Edwardsville.

Then, again, you can always grant Casino licences to the Indians you displaced :) At least it means they will not feel too hard done by.
I wonder who used to inhabit 'Edwardsville' before the White man ?

I just make that point to illustrate how 'lofty words' spoken by winners are never quite what they seem. The 'enduring principles' they speak of, are spoken on the graves of the defeated. So such principles are always 'ethnocentric'. They apply yes..but really they only apply as long as we are the winners.

Israel ? the reason for all the on going strife (Keith..watching ?) is the lack of a 'final solution'. The problem of 'human rights' and all the modern day Lincolns who (on the graves of course of the previous inhabitants) look at Israel and go "tut tut..don't be too harsh on the Palestinians."

Here in Sydney Hizb Ut Tahrir were sending out pamphlets

"The (event's) promotional material was shocking," Cr Mihailuk said. "It showed daggers with blood put through the state ofIsrael".

"It would have certainly breached our conditions of hire in that it would incite racial vilification and violence."

The spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wassim Doureihi, rejected theclaims as "baseless".

COMMENT Gee..I did NOT see 'that' coming !

I remind readers of my previous references to a 'final solution'.

"Provocatively taking the lands of the Palestinian people is not only outlawed internationally but is the largest single cause of Arab discontent."

Bollocks. The largest single source of Arab discontent is the dysfunctional state of Arab societies, which despite billions of dollars in Western aid continue to demonstrate how dysfunctional and backward Arab culture plainly is. Israel is a convenient whipping boy for people who can't solve their own problems and seek to scapegoat the Jews.

"the firing of a few rockets by a few terrorists from Gaza and rhetoric in far away capitals is far outweighed in seriousness and provocativeness by the official Israeli Government actions of illegally settling and retaining Palestinian land."

Try thousands of rockets, including those fired in the war started by Hezbollah. The rockets being fired from Gaza, incidentally, get more accurate all the time. I wonder if someone was aiming missiles at your town whether you would describe it in such mild terms. This, in the middle of what is supposed to be a ceasefire. And describing something as "far away rhetoric" is a pathetic attempt to downplay the genocidal ravings of that Iranian madman who is intent on threatening Israel and the region with nuclear weapons.

"Those captive Israeli soldiers, Israel’s spark for the war, have still not been freed in Gaza or Lebanon although negotiations are taking place. Israel still has thousands of Palestinian detainees, detained without trial."

Israel's spark for the war? Incredible. Israel can be endlessly attacked and people like this do not even raise an eyebrow. But when Israel dares to respond, the Israel haters can't wait to condemn it. And Palestinian detainees are mostly suspected terrorists, the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped from Israeli soil. Equating the two is wicked.

The history of this conflict is of Israel making endless concessions and overtures for peace and the Palestineans showing their preference for murdering civilians and the destruction of the Jewish state.

I weep for the Jews when I read such revoltingly biased commentary. If it's not anti-Semitism to hold Israel to such twisted standards, then what is it, eh?

"The “defensive wall” still encircles pockets of Palestinian lands."

Actually it encircles Israel. It is similar to Hadrian's Wall, the Wall of China or the walls built recently between Mexico and the US or between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"However the firing of a few rockets by a few terrorists from Gaza and rhetoric in far away capitals is far outweighed in seriousness and provocativeness by the official Israeli Government actions of illegally settling and retaining Palestinian land."

- Rockets only kill people, taking their land is serious.

"Even Hamas before the democratic and UN supervised Palestinian elections dropped the destruction of Israel demand from its election manifesto."

- Pity about the rockets and suicide bombs.

"So what’s changed since the recent war? Very little, except Israel, within weeks of the end in Lebanon, auctioned Palestinian land"

- Yes land is more important than firing of rockets.

"Peace might be yet found in the region if the US acts with the same sense and convictions of its founding fathers as well as with the resolution, fortitude and generosity shown by generations of Americans."

- Are you referring to Cuba, Mexico, Panama or Puerto Rico?

Keith, don't quit your day job.

A clear appraisal of Israel Palestine is impossible for humans with their petty little backing of their football team approach but how nice it would be if the promise of the observations of the baboons in Kenya could come to pass.
Baboons are territorial and very aggressive with a strict hierarchy but it was observed for one tribe the ‘old guard ‘ was killed by eating contaminated scrounged meat.
Normally the new guard would be equally aggressive territorial, female bullying and hierarchal but no the new leaders were more placid cooperative etc. and so it continued to further generations The tribal behaviour was distinctly different as reported by Natalie Angier in the New York times based on anthropological studies.
Several thoughts come to mind. This might be a bed time story for children training them to be cooperative empathetic etc all those items we give voice to in our chosen religions or it might be a media stories placed to ennoble the leaders or it might be the trivia of the media to which we are so accustomed.
But what if it were true, it is a reseach paper and not April 1 Humans and Baboons? Well we share most of our DNA but of course baboons have no soul so the relevance is nil.
But, but just suppose that such were possible that Baboons for a time at least were showing human’s an alternative behaviour. all fights did not cease but overt aggression was markedly lessened.

They of course do not have a media to pass the leaders thoughts insecurities desires and fears to the ‘tribe’ but they do have leadership.
No I am dreaming humans must have their special pleading the ability to murder and then go to Church, cleansed or media dissembling, The lazy acceptance of what the media provides wqill do the same. Profitable venture, power and profit at the expense of others is common. The expense cleansed by gift and cleared by partisan history.
So we can still barrack for our team and give our children knowing our leaders will honour their memories.

Please Mr Kennelly, when you give opinions do make sure you have the whole of the history for what has brought about the current situation at your fingertips. As I recall, (and I am old enough to recall it) it was the Arabs, who, in 1948 declared they would never let the Jews live in the land that at long last they were allowed to call a home. It was the Arabs who said that they would not rest until every Jew was murdered by driving into the sea. They have done everything to bring the destruction of Israel about, including so many things that I could cite that it would take several books. Your biased opinions are so loaded that it grieves me severely to know of them.
Arcticdog.

So Mr Kennelly was naturalised in 1984. One wonders where he came from?
His first sentence says it all. "World Opinion"!! "Decency"!! Since when has World Opinion helped the two million killed in Southern Sudan, to say nothing of the countless others traumatized, driven from their homes etc.
Since when has World Opinion helped the persecuted in Darfur and other parts of Africa, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, West Papua... The list could go on.
How "decent" is it for the Arabs to be teaching their children that it is wonderful to be martyrs, to blow up innocent men, women and children?
Five out of six posts have told Mr Kennelly how pathetic his effort was. One could almost feel sorry for him if it was not for the fact that his misinformation leads gullible people astray.
Perhaps I have missed it but surely a disclaimer - "The views presented are not necessarily the views of On Line Opinion" would at least prevent misconceptions. Fairgo.

Southern Ireland, North England and Scotland via New Zealand.

But 'fair go' for a fair go please state exactly the
'misinformation' I've written.
Don't be shy and hide behind the usual generalisations.
Be specific..point them out. Come on be a man now.

I await with baited breath.

Keith Kennelly

Kieth,
your piece is refreshingly honest and you seem to understand the mechanics of whats occurring in the region well. Rather than pitting one absolutist analogy or ideology against another, your critique sheds light on the real, factual precipitants that are at the center of the Palestinian, Israeli issue. Have u viewed a documentary presented by Sydney born journalist John Pilger called Palestine is still the issue? i recommend watching it..

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=746557429802139093&q=palestine+is+still+the+issue

Hello Peachy

No I had not seen Pilger's article. Now having watched it I felt the most basic anger. That is not good as it becomes destructive eventually. I prefer an analytical type approach, as dictated in our western Greek heritage. It's propensity to centre on truth usually overcomes the natural embellishments and prejudices of public emotive based outporings.

Thanks for your comments
Keith Kennelly

“Palestinian territories are still occupied” - yes, they still occupied by terrorists of different degree of willingness to put themselves in “martyrdom”.

A fact is Gaza and West Bank are under a rule of democratically elected self-governing president, PM with MP are all in situ.

Had not author of an article heard of such a reality in territories inhabited solely by the Arabs of Palestine?

More balanced than I would have expected (given the volume of one-sidedness that gets published), but a few points, repeating some of what others have pointed out. There does seem to be a higher standard for the Israelis than the Arabs. This could be construed as racist on 2 counts, both toward Jews & Arabs.

"Those captive Israeli soldiers, Israel’s spark for the war, have still not been freed in Gaza or Lebanon although negotiations are taking place. Israel still has thousands of Palestinian detainees, detained without trial."

Someone above pointed out the interesting use of "Israel's spark for war" bit, but I'll also point to "Palestinian detainees without trial". Presumably it's not important that the Israeli soldiers are also "detained without trial".

"Palestinian territories are still occupied...The West Bank is still occupied... Israeli checkpoints are still operating...The “defensive wall” still encircles pockets of Palestinian land".

And the suicide bombers & rockets keep on coming. I don't think the author is trying to be biased but he is nevertheless. In effect he is saying that these Israeli actions are leading to the aggressive acts Israel faces. But you could also argue the reverse. That the aggressive acts are causing these Israeli responses. Again, the different standards.

"Do these to actions by the Israeli Government indicate a desire for peace? No. They show Israel’s aggression... They indicate Israel’s desire to stir trouble....Does it think building new West Bank settlements are the way to peace?

Again, this could all be argued in reverse against the Palestinians with their acts of aggression.

And if it's "reasonable" to call for a "return to pre-67 war borders", is it also reasonable to call for a return to Germany's pre-WW2 borders with it's neighbours? If not why not? Germany started WW2 & lost land & so did the Arabs in 67.

Agree with Boaz re the lofty quotes by people who themselves (Lincoln at any rate) also started war. Besides, Franklin's quote could also be argued in favour of war, ie. in order to keep liberty, as in eg. standing up to Hitler's totalitarianism

Hi THT

You do raise interesting points. Some are worth a discussion.
The Israeli prisoners were soldiers in uniform and are prisoners of war. Do you want to see them 'tried'. Of course not. The Palestinians are civillian arrested and detained by the Israeli military authority in Palestinian occupied lands. Quite a difference and not a situation in which parallels should be drawn. I think the Palestinians would enjoy the right to be 'tried'.

The Israeli's themselves initially claimed they went to war in Lebanon to free their captive soldiers. In that sense it was an Israeli 'spark for war'. But strictly the Israeli's kept changing their reasons for going to war, in Lebanon, as they progressively failled to achieve each of their own stated objectives.

The suicide bombers haven't attacked Israel since before Lebanon. However I must point out I did state clearly the rockets are still falling and I abhor all violence.

Yes any argument can be argued in reverse. But my desire is for an end of all aggression. My point was clear, Arab states have shown an intent to that end while Israel continues it's same old actions that will merely disrupt any peaceful solution. You know just how easy would it have been to ban the new settlement? You can't say the new settlement was built to prevent Palestinian aggression or in retaliation for some terrorists firing rockets. It is plainly an aggressive act. Does that clarify my point?

When you call for the support of Israel at it's current limits, that include the occupied Arab states and use, by inference the argument 'spoils of war' then you cannot cry foul when you hear some Arabs chant for the destruction of Israel. For that is the same argument you support in claiming Palestinian lands as Israeli.

Do you call the occupation and suppression of a race of people a valid raeson for war? A valid reason for going to war would be to rid the oppression.

'I just make that point to illustrate how 'lofty words' spoken by winners are never quite what they seem. The 'enduring principles' they speak of, are spoken on the graves of the defeated. So such principles are always 'ethnocentric'. They apply yes..but really they only apply as long as we are the winners,'

You agree with the absurdities contained in that statement. I'd give you a great deal more credit than that. Perhaps you'd like to rephase your position in light of how you view either the Israelis and Palestinians positions as winners or losers.
I think you lose a few US friends if you start fiddling with the truths espoused by Lincoln. He is a great American hero to the vast majority of Americans.

Wow! Agree with David Boaz...Do you also agree with his version of the 'final solution'? You'd lose total cred if you do.
:-)

Regards

If nowadays, when Beirut is in fire again, one has not still understand who was, is and to be a real threat to peace in Middle East and worldwide, deliberating this topic would be useless.

Here is a test. Study each State in the Middle East. Don't consider religion or government. Now where would you choose to live if you had to pick one over the other?

If I was an Arab as sure as hell it wouldn't be Israel.

keith - you failed the test. You were supposed to omit religion and politics.

You'd also be surprised at the number of Arabs who happily reside in Israel. Muslim Arabs.

Being Arab is neither religious nor political it's racial.

In fact aqvarius there are quite a few millon former Arab residents of the area who would like to return to their homes and land but are denied such right by, that paragon of righteousness, the State of Israel.

You know the original question was such a dumb question and your response ... well you've now seen how silly the whole thing becomes when people refuse to see or accept realities.

<keith - you failed the test.

Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 26 January 2007 2:53:50 AM>

keith

The question referred to you. Not an Arab you.
Since you couldn't colour between the lines you failed the test.

I personally would choose Lebanon. It has a very diverse population and the citizenship have a healthy sense of democracy and industry. Of all the Middle East States I think it has the most potential and I hope one day can relive it's old rep as the Switzerland of the M.E., and Beirut, the Paris of the M.E.

a.

Yep Lebanon would be great. Hopefully the Lebanese can rise above the imbalance created recently and that all the meddlers stay the hell out of the place.

Do you want me to get a few million Arabs to answer your question. I thought it silly because the one most simple qualification to become an Israeli is that you just need to be Jewish. The same condition discrimiunates against others of any other religion or non religious. Your question ignores that very basic racist point.

So who wants to live in a racist state? I along with quite a few billion others I reckon. We vote with our feet. We don't go there.

keith

"Do you want me to get a few million Arabs to answer your question. I thought it silly because the one most simple qualification to become an Israeli is that you just need to be Jewish. The same condition discrimiunates against others of any other religion or non religious. Your question ignores that very basic racist point."

I never said anything about Israel. I said pick any State. Exclude religion and politics.

I hope the Americans continue to support Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government and that Hizballah is given the boot by the Lebanese people as a whole. I'm friends with a couple of Lebanese families who fled during the civil war. They still have family in Lebanon and are not happy with Hizballah or the some 200,000 Palestinians being there.

Keith wrote: “Do you want me to get a few million Arabs to answer your question. I thought it silly because the one most simple qualification to become an Israeli is that you just need to be Jewish. The same condition discrimiunates against others of any other religion or non religious.”

And what could one say of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, countries exemplifying the best regional living levels? Even fellow Muslims -foreign Arabs between them, are de facto restricted from obtaining citizenships / passports of.

And how far new Australian naturalization rules-in-process from these examples factually are?

No worries, in what they preach so sickeningly over-obsessed with English particular accent would quickly find themselves.

1) Israel does not have "thousands of Palestinian detainees, detained without trial". There are currently fewer than 1000 Palestinian detainees. (See http://www.btselem.org/english/Administrative_Detention/Statistics.asp ). Most of the thousands of prisoners that the Palestinians hope to trade for one illegally abducted Israeli soldier were legally arrested, tried, and convicted of various crimes, including murder and war crimes.

2) Keith: “The suicide bombers haven't attacked Israel since before Lebanon...” They have now.

3) Keith: “You can't say the new settlement was built to prevent Palestinian aggression or in retaliation for some terrorists firing rockets. It is plainly an aggressive act. Does that clarify my point?”

No. You can’t say that Palestinian terrorism, including the rocket attacks on civilians, are intended to prevent Israeli aggression or in retaliation for some people building houses. They are plainly aggressive acts. (And one must also point out the perversity of comparing the building of houses and communities to war crimes such as terrorism.)

4) “Do you call the occupation and suppression of a race of people a valid raeson for war? A valid reason for going to war would be to rid the oppression.”

You have the cart before the horse: The occupation is a result, not a cause, of war. The formula for ending occupation is very simple: Make peace.

Continued...

5) Keith: “Being Arab is neither religious nor political it's racial.”

The concept of “race” is tremendously problematic and really has no scientific or objective meaning at all, but as these things are commonly defined, the Arabs are not a “race”.

6) Keith: “the one most simple qualification to become an Israeli is that you just need to be Jewish.”

One need not be Jewish to become an Israeli.

7) Keith: “The same condition discrimiunates against others of any other religion or non religious.”

If you think being Jewish is simply a matter of religion, you don’t understand Jewish identity as most Jews, and as Israel, define it. Anyone can apply for citizenship in Israel, but our Law of Return discriminates in favor of Jews as members of the Jewish nation (not because of their religious beliefs or practices or lack thereof.) It isn’t racist (like Arabs, Jews are not a “race”), and numerous countries throughout the world similarly discriminate in favor of people of a particular nationality or ethnicity associated with the state. About this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_laws .

Sganot

Wonderful. You finally through all the verbage and justification eventually got my point.

'The occupation is a result, not a cause, of war. The formula for ending occupation is very simple: Make peace.'

The problem is as described in my article. The problam for not making efforts at peace is the Israeli's actions and their continuing 40 year occupation.

Oh and have you read Daniels propaganda piece published today. I think you'd cringe at the half truths and manipulation of facts and events it contains.

Breathtaking eh?

Sganot,
As understood, not only ethnic Jews enter Israel and become Israelis, but even Arabs -not only the Arabs of Palestine- and Muslims are short of local citizenships in a range of Arabic lands-countries of their permanent residence.

Keith,
If you think that appeasing with territories is a path to a peace, no reason wasting your life for assuring others in such a nonsense.

MichaelK

You overlook pertinant facts. It is the Israeli's who are seeking extra land just as the Nazi's did. Appeasement in that context is silly. I agree.

I think it legitimate the Palestinians have their own state and clearly defined borders .ie at pre '67 boundaries. Where is the appeasement in that?

It is the Israeli's who are not seeking a resolution to the conflict.

Didn't you understand the article?

Artic Dog

I came across this quote today. I'll share it with you.

"I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father, 1937.

NB He spouted that some 11 years before the war of 48.
Bet you don't include that little gem in your version of history.

And how would you react if the Palestinian President Ismail Haniya was to say:
'The Jews will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.'

keith,

The Palestinians have made such a statement and have taken steps to insure that the war continues. Their peace initiatives only last as long as it takes Syria or Iran to rearm them.

Like the song says. It takes two to tango. There are no innocent party's in the "erase the Jews off the face of the planet" crowd.

The main difference between Israel and Palestine is that Israel needs peace in order to manage employment. Palestinians need the war to keep their people employed.

Palestine is the complete welfare State. It's the only country in the world that has it's own aid/care section with in the U.N. that the G20 keeps pouring money into each and every year.

Keith: “Wonderful. You finally through all the verbage and justification eventually got my point.”

Through all your verbiage and justification, I get some of your points (though probably not others). I just disagree with most of them.

Keith: “The problam for not making efforts at peace is the Israeli's actions and their continuing 40 year occupation.”

To the extent that I understand that incoherent sentence, I disagree. The problem is not so simple, and cannot be blamed on one side only. If the occupation were the only reason for lack of peace, there would have been peace before the occupation, and thus, no occupation.

Keith: “Oh and have you read Daniels propaganda piece published today.”

No. Who is Daniel? Do you have a link?

MichaelK: “As understood, not only ethnic Jews enter Israel and become Israelis, but even Arabs -not only the Arabs of Palestine- and Muslims are short of local citizenships in a range of Arabic lands-countries of their permanent residence.”

I don’t know if I understand what you’re saying, but:

1) ~20% of Israeli citizens are non-Jews, and most of these are Palestinian Arab Israelis.

2) Non-Jews can certainly enter Israel, apply for citizenship, and receive it.

3) In recent years, many Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza gained Israeli citizenship by marrying Arab Israelis. I believe that this particular window to citizenship has since been closed, not out of any bigotry, but because they are citizens of the Palestinian Authority, which is essentially at war with Israel.

Keith: “I came across this quote today…”

See Benny Morris’s analysis of this half-manufactured quote at http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000805.html , “Hari quotes…”

Keith: “And how would you react if the Palestinian President Ismail Haniya was to say…”

How would we? Don’t you mean, how do we? Haniya and his allies say stuff like this all the time.
For example: “We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihad-like movement until the liberation of Jerusalem.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniya#Quotes

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-SV30CWRN8

http://www.philipklein.com/archives/2006/02/hamas_nobel_peace_prize_watch.html

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

Sganot,

You surely understood my message but missed substantial categories of a temporary work force and Muslim/Arabic refugees leaving in Israel illegally too often.

Keith,
I do understand an article and share your belief that the Arabs of Palestine might have their political entity. However, the Palestinian Authority-issued notebooks depict all Palestine as such an entity, which contradicts even known UN resolutions.

That is a trick non-Muslims lobbing for "independent Palestine" usually avoid to air in native languages.

Aqvarius and sganot.

With regard to that qoute. You both in your rush to criticise forgot to check the date of the original quote. It was said by a Jewish leader about the Palestinians in 1937.

It has obviously served as an example to later generations of Palestinians.

You blokes are simply defending the indefensible and sowing the seeds of Israel's own eventual destruction. A wiser course would be to seek a just peace for both sides.

MichaelK
Ok I accept your point and agree such action is reprehensible. Michael you need to be consistant. How many of Israeli's actions contradict UN resolutions...blatantly. Would you like a list? Do you have the courage to condemn all of them also

Keith,

With reference to your explanations, I regret an imperfect translation of a slogan common in many languages: "Having a neighbour being a fool makes one no more consoled".

Although Israel had instated the Palestinian self-rule by pull-out settlers from Gaza already, this stopped no missiles falling on the Israeli civilians in frontier places.

Keith, I brought a link quoting Benny Morris as saying that half of the quote is from 1937. Really, I'm curious how you concluded from this that I “forgot to check the date”?

It appears that in your rush to justify your use of a half-manufactured quote, you ignored what Morris wrote:

"Hari quotes David Ben-Gurion as saying in 1937: ‘I support…’ The first part of the quote (‘I support compulsory transfer’) is genuine; the rest (‘The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war’) is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?) It is true that Ben-Gurion in 1937-38 supported the transfer of the Arabs out of the area of the Jewish state-to-be – which was precisely the recommendation of the British Royal (Peel) Commission from July 1937, which investigated the Palestine problem. The commission concluded that the only fair settlement was by way of partition, with the Jews receiving less than 20 per cent of Palestine, but that, for it to be viable, the 20 per cent should be cleared of potentially hostile, disloyal Arabs. (Britain, incidentally, at the end of World War II supported the expulsion to Germany of the German Sudeten minority, which had helped Hitler destroy and occupy Czechoslovakia – for precisely the same reasons.) The Arabs, then and later, rejected the principle of partition as well as the specific Peel proposals.

"Neither Ben-Gurion nor the Zionist movement ‘planned’ the displacement of the 700,000-odd Arabs who moved or were removed from their homes in 1948. There was no such plan or blanket policy. Transfer was never adopted by the Zionist movement as part of its platform; on the contrary, the movement always accepted that the Jewish state that arose would contain a sizeable Arab minority."

Keith: "...defending the indefensible and sowing the seeds of Israel's own eventual destruction. A wiser course would be to seek a just peace for both sides."

You are simply make stuff up, out of thin air. A just peace for both sides is exactly what I seek.

Hi,

Haha, let me just say that I am 15, and living in South Africa,
I will admit right now that I didn't even come close to reading all of the article, though I did get the jist of it, I don't want to go off about a subject I know absolutely nothing about, all I want to say is:

The majority off us stand(sit)around watching people die on tv, we sit in our perfect homes(well compared to them) and heckle the people who have balls big enough to stand up for their beliefs.

We wait in lines to buy their books and hear their stories on the murder, rape and destruction.

Rascism, Hatred, Conflict over religious views,(i could go on and on) are the things that are seperating us as a global whole, im not even going to joke and say that the entire world will be friends, but we can come close.

Our destrution and hatred WILL lead to our undoing, we are fighting over stupid, idiotic things.(mostly)

again, I know nothing on the topic, but I intend to educate myself further. THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS, this post wont change the world and i know that.
:-)

Just stated the obvious did'nt I?

With reference to “heckle the people who have balls big enough to stand up for their beliefs”, it is not quite obvious that majority of forum participants are so experienced in comparing the family jewels’ sizes.

With reference to “heckle the people who have balls big enough to stand up for their beliefs”, it is not quite obvious, because it is not quite clear whether majority of forum participants are so experienced in comparing the family jewels’ sizes.

Dear Michaelk,

Did I, in any word of that post accuse you, or anyone else in this forum of "not having balls big enough" etcetera.

Furthermore, I greatly disagree with you trying to turn this into some kind of forum fight, firstly i stated many times that what i said was MY own opinion,

secondly, yes men actually do have balls, it is a part of the male anatomy, if you should like to elaborate upon this subject search "testicles" im sure you will find something suiting your needs.

find a friend Michael, as i think you need one, you neednt reply to me as this is the last time i will stoop to your level.

Goodbye and enjoy your life.

If one suggested I was not on his level of mixing participants "balls" with vacuum in their heads, well compensated by mates from public coffins, he is right perfectly.

However, balls-related mentoring should be addressed to an initial author of expression rather than to me.