Wikepedia;
QUOTE
Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. The unit was known for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, notably in the widely condemned Qibya operation in the fall of 1953, in which 69 Palestinian civilians, some of them children, were killed by Sharon's troops in a reprisal attack on their West Bank village. In the documentary Israel and the Arabs: 50 Year War, Ariel Sharon recalls what happened after the raid, which was heavily condemned by many Western nations, including the U.S.:
END QUOTE

Clearly Sharon was morally bankrupt to kill civilians, including children, as a reprisal attack. And, he also as Prime minister caused to have two Hams political leaders to be killed by a helicopter shooting rockets in to their office. An Israelis intelligent officer made clear (SBS program-Tuesday 3-7-2007) that one of the Hamas political figures that were killed had just published a book OPPOSING any violence and promoting to pursue a POLITICAL resolution.
And he was ASSASINATED by the Israelis for this!

Now it is all very well to concentrate on Hamas or other groups and ignore what Sharon and others did using Israelis forces!

Again
QUOTE
Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image.
END QUOTE

Now, to do that to “BOLSTER Israeli image and fortify deterrent image” hardly appears to be showing a peace loving Israel.

Sure, Hamas and others may not particularly be Angels (other then Angels of Death) but the Israelis using “ASSASINATION” and “EXTERMINATION” instead of the “RULE OF LAW” should be condemned by any peace loving person.
In the many postings little is set out indeed, about, what appears to be to me “GANSTER” conduct by Sharon using the Israelis army

Yvonne,

Thank you for your comments. I agree with everything you say - and you express these so well

If you utter the word “intellectual” in front of the majority of Australians, they immediately search for something nasty smalleing stuck to the soles of their shoes.

As your sons studied history in High School, did they have to learn about the wonders of the stump-jump plough? So very useful and rivetting information ...

BOAZ_David,

At the risk of having great thunderbolts from above levelled at me by yourself, we can’t really isolate and blame the Sassoon family for the opium trade - remarkable as they may have been.

In mid-18th century, the British East India Company pursued a monopoly on production and export of opium in India. The British were selling 1,400 tons annually to China. In 1799, the Chinese Empire tried to irradicate its use, reaffirming its ban on opium imports.

In 1839, Queen Victoria, received a letter from Lin Zexu appealling to against her royal government's moral reasonings for enforcing strict prohibition of opium trade within all Of Britain, while reaping profits from such trade in the Far East.

"Your Majesty has not before been thus officially notified, and you may plead ignorance of the severity of our laws. But I now give my assurance that we mean to cut this harmful drug forever."
(Chinese Repository, Vol. 8 (February 1840), pp. 497-503)

In right regal fashion, she replied: “f... off !”

The mid-19th century, saw Britain continuing thier smuggling of opium from British India into China. China attempted to enforce her laws against the trade- the result an opium trafficking war.

The early 20th century opium trade in Singapore was not only fostered by the British Government, but they also held the monopoly. A Singaporean Chinese told me that they were “often” paid in opium by the Government, which he saw as a way of controlling subject races.

Let’s not blame a Jewish family for the ills of an over 200 year British opium trade.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

As Logic has stated: Frequent Arab rioting directed at Jews began in the 1920’s - the Hebron attack saw viturally the entire Jewish community flee or killed - (133 Jews killed, and 399 wounded). The British who didn’t usally interfere in such matters, decided that after six days of this, that they should present a presence. Common attacks against Jews were not in any way connected with Arab nationalism.

The British, masters of imperialism, preferred that Arab attack Jews ( a diversionary tactic) - rather than Arabs identify their actual oppressors, adopt true nationalism, and turn on the Brits.

Analyses of land plots purchased by Jews from 1880 to 1948 shows that 48% were purchased from large landowners - such as the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, As’ad el-Shuqueiri (a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqueiri; even King Abdullah leased land to them. Many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including those of the Muslim Supreme Court sold Jews land.

The height of the 1938 Arab Revolt, whenArab landholders were being terrorised by Arab rebels and fled, they off-loaded their land to Jews - the latter paying exhorbitant prices for small tracts of aid land. In 1944 Jews paid between $1000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine mostly for arid or semi-arid land. That same year, rich black soil in Iowa (USA) was selling for $110 per acre. Jews would not have been able to go to the USA, due to Washington’s immigration quota.

By 1947 Jewish land holdings in Palestine - purchased at exhorbitant prices - amounted to 45,000 acres.

Keith.

If you had your heart's desire, and the Palestinians (Gaza and West Bank) overwhelmed Israel, a country of extraordinary advances in sciences, technologies, arts, philanthropy and education; this modern democratic country, where all are equal, - even inter-marrying, would become a bloody shambles like that seen in Palestinian areas. Sixty years of development would disappear overnight, being replaced by the daily and indiscriminate bloodbaths and mayhem seen in the Palestinian territory today.

Also, every militant murderous group would descend from outside.

My only hearts desire is for peace in the middle east and that will only be secured with the Palestinians having their own state free from the suppression of your war-mongering Israelis . That state will by necessity be set within the '67 borders.

It's seems your sad heart's desire is for a continuation of the violence. You foolishly seem to not to want to open your mind to the possibility of peace and want to cheer on and revel in the ongoing violence.

What a very very sad commentary. You just like the Israelis do not reflect the true values of western liberal democrats and it is good to see you recognise that in your description of Israel as only democratic and modern.

I really wonder what part of Australia you in habit. My Australia is filled with people who can and do discuss many issues. All are well educated abhor violence are sensitive and have great regard for academic achievement, not only in career paths but also in intellectual pursuits. They unlike you are very proud of their homeland and the achievements of it's people. They and I usually seek to praise rather than wallow in the indecent pursuit of a damaging, dishonest and narrow vision that usually results in the types of criticisms against Australians and Australia that you've often levelled during your defence of the ongoing violence.

You should take stock of how your anonymously expessed views reflect upon yourself. Very very sad really.

Danielle was perfectly correct in saying that the violence in Palestine was started by Arabs. In covering the Hebron massacres she neglected to mention that the Jewish community there was an ancient one.

Unfortunately violence begets violence, and a threatened people will always consider their own protection of paramount importance. Why dwell on the wrongs and mistakes of Israel and ignore what the other side did? If the Palestinians would recognise the rights of the Israelis to their choice of a democratic society and admit that Jews were wrongfully treated in Muslim lands a good solution could be found.

As a starter I would like to see the Palestinians treating the remaining Christians as well as Israel treats its Muslims. Christians are leaving the west bank for Israel, we don't hear of Muslims leaving Israel for the West Bank.

Danielle,

My issue is not as to Jews who lawfully obtained their land, for whatever price, my issue is the Jews who used terrorism to push Arabs of their lands and in the process killed some or all of the landowners.

My issue is the conduct of the likes of Ariel Sharon with the unit 101.

While it is proclaimed by Keith that Israel is treating Arabs equally, recent media coverage indicates otherwise. Sure some might be but others aren’t and the fact that it pursues to be a Jewish state rather then a secular state itself may underline this.
Likewise a Islamic dominated country cannot be deemed to provide equality as it dictates Islamic values upon those who are not part of that religion.

I UNDERSTAND THAT A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS SECT OF JEWS DO NOT HAVE TO WORK AT ALL AS THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED AGAINST WORKING.

What is important is to understand that the tit for tat murdering conduct places many on all sides at fault but usually the innocent are the one suffering.

While it was held to justify by mass murder Iraqi’s for allegedly being in breach of about 17 United Nation’s security council resolutions, the fact that Israel is in breach of a reported more then 67 resolutions is another issue, you do not hear Australian politicians to mention as a reason to invade Israel, then again they do not have the “ILLUSIVE” WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION the Late President Saddam Hussein was deemed to have had, as Israel rather have the “REAL” WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Despite that the late President Saddam Hussein had constitutional immunity, he still was unconstitutionally/illegally placed before the Courts and no wonder executed, despite that as a prisoner of the coalition of the willing he was also entitled of Australian law and not to be executed.

Whatever the late President Saddam Hussein may have done wrong, we are no better if we disregard the DUE-PROCESS-OF-LAW!

What we (as a society) have done and still are doing to Aboriginals is a clear example that we are ourselves morally bankrupt.