Excuse me? When you talk about peace initiatives dying, it would be nice to remember that Israel has given REAL things to the Palestinians, while they won't even give RECOGNITION to Israel. What a joke! A state that was created by UN mandate not recognized by baby killers.

Palestinians were offered real peace as recently as 2000--they started Intifada II instead. Then they chose to elect Hamas--a terrorist thug organization-- to represent them.

Sharon gave up Gaza--Palestinians did nothing.

Palestinians have attacked nothing but civilians. Israel has targeted terrorists.

The real answer is, whatever an individual Palestinian may say, collectively they would rather live in their fantasy world and hope that global antisemitism will ultimately overcome the only democracy in the Middle East.

The Palestinians have barely given up symbolic tokens. They still teach terror to their children, their textbooks do not recognize Israel--and when they have been given autonomy to any degree the leadership demonstrates that it is as corrupt and bloodthirsty as the rest of nutcases from Saddam to Gaddafi to the Ayatollahs to the al-Sauds.

When will people on the left recognize that the Palestinians represent their worst nightmares. If they ever got to power they would massacre every Jew in Israel. Given more power, they would go after the US. Their cheering support for the 9/11 terrorists should certainly document that!

So how about giving a little support to the very few people, who occupy a non-oil bearing 0.1% of the land in the Middle East rather than the ones who have skinned alive Israelis who inadvertently found themselves surrounded by poor peace-loving Palestinians?

What I've always wondered is, why do all the Palestinians live on one side of the wall and all the Isrealis live on the other? The whole land used to belong to Palestine. I don't see the current demographic situation today being possible unless at some point the Palestinians were evicted from their homes. If this happened did they recieve compensation? If such an event did happen then it is no wonder they are angry. I am, of course, completely ignorant of the facts in this case.

Pulmon, Statements like "Palestinians have attacked nothing but civilians" is simply factually wrong. Clean up the inflammatory language and quit making shit up if you want to discuss the issue.

Pulmon's post and language do not reflect the beliefs of liberals who support the existence of Israel.

Israel's imminent turn away from right-wing government towards a moderate party, and the unilateral withdrawal from some (though not enough) land, is a good sign. Olmert's aversion to negotiation will only last as long as his administration, if it even lasts that long. It is not feasible for Israel to permanently cease the peace process with the Palestinians.

Many Israelis do not support the settlements. In public polls, AFAIK, the settlements have increasingly less support. Settlement is not in the best interest of Israel, and it is my conviction that it will wane as an institution because of its great ethical and tactical harm.

Norm, I don't believe you're "picking" on Israel- anyone who makes that accusation should just look at the news and journals lately discussing the US' Israel policy- but I do worry that your criticisms of Israel may be part of a larger problem you have with the nation's existence- such as its often misunderstood status as a "Jewish state." I would like nothing better than to be corrected - I'm just sensing dark, unwitting connotations in your Israel-related posts (ex. Israel as a "racist state"). The development of peace and an equitable solution between the two groups would be better served by a more humanitarian and nuanced rhetoric, rather than a combative one.

Well let us put some facts straight: Israel conqured the palestenian lands with their superior army. Israel build settlements in the occupied territories.

Point: Might is right. Why would they give up something for nothing ? Throughout history:

Israel did not protect the rights of palestenians as they are obliged to, being an occupying force.

Israel ignored all UN resolutions such as letting refugees return to their lands.

Ignored resolutions concerning withdrawing from lands conquered during the 1967 war (1973 war changed that for a while)

While it is very easy to point the finger at the palestenians for all this, one must remember that Israel are the ones with the nuclear weapons, F16, mirkava tanks etc. and they have the power to implement a just resolution any time they want. but it will not be in their interest and thus will unlikely happen.

again, might is right. its cruel but its true.

"Excuse me? When you talk about peace initiatives dying, it would be nice to remember that Israel has given REAL things to the Palestinians, while they won't even give RECOGNITION to Israel."

Where does this stuff come from? At Oslo the PLO recognized Israel and renouced violence. So talking about "the Palestinians" giving recognition or not is ignorant.

"Palestinians were offered real peace as recently as 2000--they started Intifada II instead."

In 2000 both sides were working and came very close. It's not correct that Israel offered peace and the Palestinians declined it. Both sides were working hard and both sides did their part to screw it up. For one thing, Israel refused to recognize the rights of Palestinian refugees. The second Intifada was, no doubt, a stupid disaster that made things worse for Palestinians (e.g. far more civilians were killed on the Palestinian side). Many thought that it would give them the upper hand in negotiations, like Israel probably thought they could get an upper hand by expanding the settlements during years of relative quiet in the 90s. But there is also no doubt that Israelis who were against a peace deal (like Sharon) did their part to egg it on.

"Then they chose to elect Hamas--a terrorist thug organization-- to represent them."

Who would you have voted for? I myself would have voted for Fatah--that "corrupt", "inept" party "not doing enough for peace" (according to Israel and the Bush). Exit polls show that Palestians didn't vote Hamas because they wanted total war with Israel, but because they wanted a clean government.

"Sharon gave up Gaza--Palestinians did nothing."

Oooh, Gaza! What do you think Gaza is, the Hamptons? It's an ungovernable, miserable, strip of hell. The only people in Israel who wanted to keep Gaza were religious zealots who think Israel should kick everyone out of the territories and replace them with Jews. I give Sharon credit for not sharing that crazed view of things. But Gaza does nothing for Israel economically, or security-wise. The idea that Gaza is a bargaining chip only appeals to a few people in the West--hardly any Israelis or Palestinians buy it any more. If anything, abandoning Gaza relieves Israel of the responsibility for several million people, while at the same time handing the PA an impossible situation, which they can use as yet another reason why the PA is not competent enough to govern their own state.

"Palestinians have attacked nothing but civilians. Israel has targeted terrorists."

'The target is on the terrorists.' Problem is that those pesky ordinary Palestinians keep walking in front of the target. Wherever their target is, Israel still kills a lot more civilians than Palestinian terrorists do. Whatever their intent is, it results in more unrelated death than a direct, targeting of civilians does. That's not excused by the fact that some Palestinians are deliberately pursuing a disgusting strategy of collective guilt themselves.

"When will people on the left recognize that the Palestinians represent their worst nightmares... Their cheering support for the 9/11 terrorists should certainly document that!"

This is flat-out nuts. The things you are talking about aren't just questions of ideology or faith that you can claim anything you want about. They are empirical questions. And empirical studies show that Palestinian majorities want an independent state living alongside Israel. They have other views which are politically unwise and ethically questionable, but they are not radical beyond the pale.

These arguments about Palestinian monsters are very similar to arguments made by American slaveowners about slaves: "We know that this system is unjust--but 'these people' can't govern themselves, and besides if we free them they'll kill us all!" Your argument about "these people" is no less racist than theirs. The left may disagree with many parts of Palestinian politics, but the left also rejects the kind of tyranny of 'the best we can do', according to which any electoral democracy gets a blank check to do whatever it wants. No regime in the world is exempt from moral criticism.

You should actually try to meet a Palestinian. There are some of them living in America. Be as sneaky as possible--try to get them to reveal their secret plot to kill all Jews and take over the world.

disagreeing bloggers on this fine site are no different than most conversants on this heated topic, for which inflammatory language is normal, understandable and predictable. and if you'll forgive the understatement, neither side will prevail in winning over the other on a blog. so, in the spirit of calmness and respect, i would ask you to consider my opinion, and the following: would $900 million in aid be enough to build infrastructure for palestinians, jumpstart their fledgling economy and ease poverty?

i would venture to say "yes, it is reasonably enough," yet, the palestinians have already received this level of aid. their own leadership pilfered it in the 1990s (and beyond), as reported by the international monetary fund.

arafat was a lot like dubya -- religiously jingoistic, warmongering, anti-intellectual, duping his peoplehood, extremely psychologically defensive, and of course, prone to making the rich (him and his cronies) richer. a true state of palestine could be trading goods with israel right now if only..........

anyway, i have to say i love this site, from daily show to chess to richard dawkins. here's to future disagreements.

"might is right. its cruel but its true."

Might isn't right, and never will be. It doesn't matter if all the bleeding heart idealists in the world stop believing in right, it still won't make might equal right.

Might is might, and nothing more. Say you have power over me--perhaps I can't do anything about it, and it would be imprudent for me to resist. But simply being under your control gives you no right at all. If a mugger uses force to take your wallet, does he have a right to it as well?

Talk about facts!!!

There were no Palestinian lands. The word "Palestinian was used for the first time in the mid 1960s. When the original partition plan was developed, there were two states: a Jewish one, called Israel, and an Arab one called Jordan. The Arabs who left Israel after its creation were put into camps by Egyptians and Jordanians. When Israel, in response to Arab aggression, conquered the territories that contained those camps, for the first time in history they became a "problem". There was no problem, nor was there a "Palestine" when those lands were held by other nations.

No binding UN resolution EVER called for a right for palestinians to "return" to land. Especially land they had never seen. We are now looking at the third generation of people who left Israel at its formation.

Palestinians have lobbed missiles into settlements. They have bombed pizzerias and buses. They have bombed hotels and religious services.

Israel has targeted individual terrorists and minimized "collateral damage". The truth may be inflammatory, but it is nonetheless true.

The only case I can find where an Israeli knowingly attacked Arabs who were not part of a terrorist group was when that crazy guy attacked a mosque--and he is in prison in Israel.

Until you get your own facts straight you cannot really argue intelligently.

dende blogger: you polemicized on pulmon for going on an unfounded diatribe then you do the same thing ending with meet a palestinian? give me a break. how many israelis believe that the palestinians can generate a responsible democratic government? not many i'll bet, but even fewer of them would think along the lines you would have them, with a poorly stated analogy to american slavery.

my prob. here norm is this: youve posted to generally anti-israel articles. fine. but the problem is that they pick at the same bones, primarily the settlements. the pro-israeli lobby in america entices huge incoming financial support while doing what they want (expanding settlements) with impunity. the real question regarding any peace is: if there were no settlements do you really think there would be peace? and it really doesnt matter that your answer would be: "no, but israel has also done..." the point is that the settlements are not really the issue.

"Israel has targeted individual terrorists and minimized "collateral damage."

F-16 armed with a one-ton bomb

"Until you get your own facts straight you cannot really argue intelligently."

"would $900 million in aid be enough to build infrastructure for palestinians, jumpstart their fledgling economy and ease poverty?"

You raise a completely valid point. The Palestinian Authority is not very good at many aspects of government. This may be a good argument for not giving them more aid than they currently get. But it isn't a good argument, in my opinion, for not giving them political independence. Just about every state in the world has gone through a period of corruption and clientelism equivalent to what is going on with the PA right now. Developing sound political and legal institutions, under which an economy can thrive, is a long process. Roads and power lines can be simply bought with money; institutions can't. Palestinians obviously have the primary responsibility for building these institutions. But Israel has surely done its part to sabotage the whole process from time to time.

I've written more than once that I believe Israel has a right to exist and that we should support them in that right. That said, our policy in the the conflict between Israel and Palestine is in my opinion unbalanced. We provide virtually unlimited aid to Israel regardless of what they do, while aid to Palestine is almost always performance based. I think it is in our interest to be consistent in how we apply our standards. If there were no settlements would there be peace? I don't know, but it seems clear that with settlements there is even less of chance of peace.

Right on, Norm.

A few days ago, Norm posted re: Israel and he or others called Israel racist because its immigration policies favor Diaspora Jews. Supposedly, Israel was unique in this regard. So I was pleasantly surprised tonight to find out that this is not the case. Here's an exerpt:

"Armenia, which promotes “the protection of Armenian historical and cultural values located in other countries” and guarantees that “[i]ndividuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship” through “a simplified procedure”; or democratic Lithuania, which announces that “[e]veryone who is ethnically Lithuanian has the right to settle in Lithuania”; or democratic Poland, which holds that “[a]nyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland.”

For the full text, see http://www.acpr.org.il/English-Nativ/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm which includes some other interesting double standards with regard to Israel.

Again, I criticize Israel o'plenty. But fair is fair. And if other countries like Poland, Lithuania and Armenia aren't called on their 'racism', one has to wonder why Israel is held to a higher standard.

Why bring up Poland and other countries when what is being discussed here is Israel?

Excerpts from this site, Jews for Justice in the Middle East http://www.cactus48.com/jewishlaw.html "Let me add that the best hope of better future in the Middle East lies in all its peoples criticizing their religions, customs and past. Continuing to be enslaved to past leads to perpetuation of all conflicts."

"It is known in Israel that most of religious, that is Orthodox Jews, whether in Israel or the USA did not protest against massive take over (in my view robbery) of Palestinian property solely for the benefit of Jews, taking place now for 52 years. (The few exceptions merely confirm the rule.) The Jewish opposition to this robbery mostly comes from Jews who are opposed ­ often violently opposed ­ to the Orthodox form of Jewish religion"

I'd like to see those two work out a peace, but how is that possible when people are so actively distorting the facts.

Isrealis of all persuasions seem to be a lot more vocal in disseminating their version of the facts. For that reason, I think the Isreali peace block is probably the best source of available and honest, facts.

There is some pretty blatant propoganda out there (PalestineFacts.org)

Wikipedia seems pretty good at the moment, and reveals that "Palestine" was a term brought back into use with the 1920 British Mandate. The first use of the term was in the 500 A.D.

Come on people. This is a touchy issue, and before any discussion of peace is gonna ever be possible, both sides need to make a commitment to maintain credibility that is higher than usual. That requires taking care to make sure that yours "facts" can't be disproven in a 2 minute browse of wikipedia.

The wall works. The split of the two populations works. That is real. That is all you have to say to an Israeli. Three years ago innocent civilians were being killed on a regular basis, and now, not so much. You can argue everything else, but if you actually lived in the country in question, one would be having far fewer conversations regarding ethics. Sad but true. People do not like being killed randomly. They don't like to wonder if when they said goodbye to their daughter tonight, it might be the last time, (since she has to take a bus to Ramat-Gan.)

Hopefully some agreements can be made that give up more settlements in the West bank, but I am not holding my breath. The most optimistic outcome I could see, would be an active airport and seaport in Gaza and a transportation corridor connecting the Gaza strip to the west bank as has been suggested. If they could get some capitol investment and some jobs, then it would most likely remove a lot of the radicalism. However even then nothing can be done to gain political acceptance of Israel. So why should they try?

Some of you that are so anti-Israel, well ok should they just declare it a failed experiment and leave? Should the arabs push them rightously into the sea? If you suggest this well there is no reason for Israel to listen to you. This is the outlook of the majority palestinian parties, so why talk? Unilateralism is the first thing that worked.

As for the OP.. the idea that Israel "stalling" is the cause for all of the problems... so Oslo was nothing? One sided views are not worthy of being part of the liberal viewpoint. If I wanted a poorly thoughtout diatribe I would go to www.Hannity.com

Actually I reread the original post and I think I was unfair, as it is somewhat well written. I agree with some of the facts, but disagree with most of the conclusions. Why does the Palestianian area have to be a "pseudo state?" The "palestinian state" was something the PLO was working on for years, and was bargaining for in the Oslo accords.

The rest is a chicken and the egg arguement. Was it the Israeli push for settlements that killed the PLOs interest in a serious solution, or did the palestinian bombers keep sending the Israelis into the arms of Likud right wing "security" based governments that guarenteed that the settlements would continue.

It is a complex subject as someone else said.

I've found one of the best sites to get the 'facts' on both sides is www.israelipalestinianprocon.org ... it does a pretty good job of going through the issues as both parties see them.

As for the wall, I support it. It's ugly and it's sad but it's practically stopped the suicide bombs. I think the wall should follow the 1967 borders as closely as possible (except for Jerusalem) but untiil both parties can work out a peace, the wall will remain a sad reality.

I find it fascinating that those who call the wall illegal, don't call suicide bombings illegal. They're bot illegal. But i'll take the crime that saves people's lives over the one that kills them any day.

I think that Israeli and Palestinians both have the right to a state of their own. I don't think that anybody can argue with a straight face against the wall being build with the intention to protect territories in which Israelis live (includig occupied land). However, the particular border drawn by Israel with the wall is an expression of its might but not its right, as somebody previosuly observed (similarly, if allowed, Mexic may draw the border including quite a bit of southern US. Examples abound elsewhere). Consequently, as in other occupied territories where the minority refuses to go along, years of bickering and fighting will follow, no matter how democratic the Palestinian state will become (if ever). Therefore, until Israel ceases imposing uni-lateral measures based solely on its might, they shouldn't expect peace, which must be a two-sided agreement.

I've found that http://www.mideastweb.org/ is also a fairly balanced source to read about the conflict on.

And the Reuters also has a nice column on the issue at hand posted 3 hours ago-- I recommend reading that as well.

"Wikipedia seems pretty good at the moment, and reveals that "Palestine" was a term brought back into use with the 1920 British Mandate. The first use of the term was in the 500 A.D.

So what? I keep reading this argument being made. So just call them Arabs then. The fact remains that about 630,000 Arabs were forced off their land, where they were living. They did not have the support of the British, and thus had no military power. Because they have no military power, the only way that they have to defend themselves is via suicide bombings. Yes, what they do amounts to terrorism. If they had military power equal to that of Israel, then they could instead attack military targets and then just claim "collateral damage"

the U.S. has for years been asking Israel not to build settlements, not to expand settlements, and in spite of our unwavering support we've been ignored.

It is because of our "unwavering support", Israel has chosen to continue building settlements. America enables the devestation and exploitation of Palestinian people.

"those who call the wall illegal, don't call suicide bombings illegal."

Except you apparently--you call the wall illegal and suicide bombings too. But rest assured, you're not alone in the world. I don't think it's legal. I know several other people who agree with me (and you), and none of them think that Palestinian attacks on civilians is legitimate, moral, or legal; nor do I. Some obviously do, somewhere, but many others don't.

500,000 Jews were "forced off their land" in Arab countries in the 1950s and 60s. My grandfather was one of them. Are the Arabs planning on returning my grandfather's property and his flour mills? Last time I checked, my family has no military power, but we're not blowing people up.

And what does "they did not have the support of the British" mean? Is this implying that the Israelis did? I hope not because that would be a lie. If anything the British supported the Jordanians and Egyptians during the 1948 war, both of whom were their client states.

"For 20 years, while one peace initiative after another died due to Israeli stalling and the patience of moderate Palestinians eroded, "

Give me a friggin' break. Israel gave Palestine everything they wanted up - except the dissolution of Israel and Arafat denied it. REPEATEDLY.

But don't let the truth get in the way of the Israel-is-Evil agenda.

The dispossessed Palestinians have no country to call their own. They have to fight for every inch they get and even the little bit of land that they are allowed is forever being encroached upon. Is it not true that the wall which was built took away some of their territory?

At least your grandfather has better options as he has a homeland, the state of Israel. There is no country which these dispossessed Arabs can call their own except for the little area called the West Bank, and even those borders are disputed, paltry as the square miles of this area are.

Was not the Balfour declaration of 1917 evidence of support of Britain in the early days of setting up the State of Israel?

Lord Balfour wrote in a private memorandum sent to Lord Curzon, his successor at the Foreign Office (Curzon initially opposed Zionism) on 11 August 1919:

For in Palestine we do not propose to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants ... The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land (Quoted in Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel 1917-1948, reprinted Bloomingtron: Indiana University Press, 1973).

The British rule included collective punishment for Palestinians, preferential treatment of Jewish settlers (arming them also),

Unfortunately, the White Paper was too little, too late to effect a long-term move toward peace. Britain had created a huge problem by supporting teh Zionist program and it was not possible to draw back. Further, historical events such as the Second World War, Nazi atrocities, and the establishment of the powerful Yishuv (Zionist settlement movement) with British support, all added up to continuing the Zionist project full force

source: http://qumsiyeh.org/palestiniannonviolentresistance/

So are the above statements lies?

At any rate, the fact remains that Israel has a powerful military and the Palestinians do not. Thus the only means which Palestinians have to defend their little territory is to throw rocks and acts of terrorism.

You obviously know a lot more than I do about this, and I wonder what your feelings and beliefs are on the plight of the Palestinians. I mean, have you ever put yourself in their shoes?

Well, Palestinian terrorism does not really amount to "legitimate" asymmetrical warfare, if there is such thing as legitimate war. Suicide bomb attacks, etc. at conventional military targets are not terrorism for that reason. In 2003, an Arab owned restaurant, Maxim, in Haifa, was bombed, resulting in 21 deaths which included numerous Arabs. Maxim is considered a symbol of Arab and Jewish coexistence in the city. I've been there, and its rebuilding was a testament to resilience against such pointless violence. There is no way to justify this kind of targeting. That said, such acts do not make it right to ignore the rights of Palestinians.

The Israelis make a serious, technically advanced effort to avoid civilian causalities. It is simply not official policy to attack civilians. That said, the aggressive (fear-exacerbated) military tactics of the IDF do result in unacceptable civilian deaths, as well as lost livelihoods. Thus I would agree that there is a severe problem, but there is absolutely no evidence that there is conspiratorial intent. I agee with above statements that the placement of the wall is wrong, and that the displacement of Palestinians needs to be remedied- through a combination of right of return to an established Palestinian state, coupled with amnesty for some refugees in other Arab countries. Unfortunately, nearby Arab countries don't want the Palestinians.

Actually, I put myself in their shoes continually. And if I were a Palestinian Arab I'd ask why my Arab brethren in the 20 or so other Arab countries have done nothing to help my plight other than letting me rot in refugee camps. Palestinian Arabs in Israel became citizens with full voting rights. Palestinians in brotherly Kuwait do not. Certainly Palestinian Arabs face injustices perpetrated by Israel, but where are the greater injustices?

500,000 Jews were able to be absorbed into tiny Israel from Arab lands in a matter of a decade, but 600,000 Palestinians were never absorbed by other Arab countries. Ask yourself why this was the case.

On the one hand Palestinians consider themselves disposessed of their homeland. On the other hand, they always talk about being part of one Arab nation -- an Arab nation that really couldn't give a crap about them, except as a pawn to be used against the Jews.

In addition to this, Palestinians DO have a homeland called Palestine. In 1920, this homeland included what is today Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and... Jordan. In 1921 the British carved out 2/3 of this land, renamed it Trans-Jordan and installed a puppet king. 65% of Jordan's population is Palestinian. 2/3 of the original Palestine Mandate is now part of Jordan. Add Gaza and most of the West Bank and probably 80% of the original Palestinian lands are theirs. I think that's a pretty good deal. Overthrow king Abdullah and proclaim a Palestinian Republic in Jordan and Gaza and the West Bank. Why won't that happen? Because the truth is this is not about the Palestinians NOT having a homeland. You can call it Jordan or Disneyland, it's still 80% of Palestine. The problem is that the JEWS have one. And it drives the Arabs CRAZY that the Jews have taken land from them... land incidently that they conquered from a whole series of people over the last 2000 years.

I also find it amusing that I never hear anyone suggest we should return the lands that make up the United States and Canada to the Indians. If the Jews "stole" this land from the Palestinians and should return it, they why not the Indians. In the end, war destroys lives and changes borders. Everyone has the right to fight for a return to the way things were. But its no guarantee of success. And if the Jews hadn't been persecuted and slaughtered, they would never have seen Israel reconstituted.

As for my grandfather having had a homeland, if you'd have asked him his homeland was Egypt. He was not a supporter of Israel, that is until they kidnapped him, tortured him and exiled him. So much for being a Jew in an Arab land.

Thank you all for such an interesting and very important discussion, the resolution of which, would do much to resolve a lot of the problems which plague the world. What was just posted above gives me a lot to think about. I wish that there were a Palestinian here to present the other side.

As i posted earlier... go to israelipalestinianprocon.org for both sides treated quite fairly... doesnt make value judgments, just presents the facts as each side sees them

David Ben Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

Has anyone ever thought of the motivation of the Balfour Decloration, why it took so long to impliment, and how the end results affected the displaced.

Imagine the native Americans taking the U.S. land back.

Just a thought...

hp... if you want to quote haphazardly, then try this one on for size:

Emir Faisal (the most powerful Arab leader in the early 1900s, also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:

"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other."

Finding a quote that fits your viewpoint isn't that tough... and it really doesnt solve the problem on the ground today.

There have been good points raised on both sides here. If you wish to know I am more pro-Israel than not but I certainly sympathize with the Palestinians. However, I must point out that, as I like to quote, "The worst enemy of the Arab is another Arab." By this I mean that the entire issue at hand was created, not by Israel as such, but by the Arab leaders who have used the Palestinians as a way of criticizing Israel and pursuing their own agendas to no one's benefit but their own. I am deeply saddened by the fact that the Palestinians and the Arabs in general are kept ignorant by their own leaders, the very people who are supposed to care about and look after them. Until educational reform comes to the middle east and the theocratic dominance of selfish, rich, fundamentalist leaders ends, I am doubtful of a lasting peace being possible.

Oh, and in point of fact, when Israel was first created by the UN, they did not force anyone to leave. The Arab leaders told the Palestinians that the Israelis would kill them if they stayed and, being ignorant and pumped full of hateful propaganda, they believed what they were told and left. Is it the fault of Israel that the Arab countries surrounding Israel on all sides refused to let them in? The refugee problem was created purposefully as a political weapon that could be used to point the finger at Israel and say, "Look how terrible they are."

Also, in point of fact, the state of Israel that was created by the UN in the first place was tiny. It was, as one author put it, "an abortion of a state." One top of that, the Israelis who had been returning to their homeland bought all the land they lived on, legally, from the Palestinians who would have done nothing with it and left it desert for all they cared, yet nevertheless demanded more than the land was worth. Yet the Jews prospered and continued to buy more land until they had most of what constituted that first state of Israel anyhow. I could go on but you get the idea.

As for the British, they were interested only in preserving their foothold in the Middle East, and that meant favouring the Arabs, who controlled all the oil. The ironic thing is, the Arabs believed that the British were helping the Jews and turned on them anyway despite the fact that the British turned a blind eye to terrorist activities on the part of the Arabs. In the end, the British lost their foothold and Israel became a state despite the official policy of being pro-Arab in order to preserve the Empire.

What am I trying to say by all this? Just that the Arabs were lied to and cheated by their own leaders for political purposes. It was a case of a ruling class trying desperately to shut out any influence which might disturb the absolute power they had over the masses. So they pumped them full of hate and fear and religious indignation, slapped guns into their hands and did their best to destroy Israel. Despite being outnumbered, undersupplied, underfed, outgunned, and surrounded by enemies, Israel won. In 1967, they were again attacked by better equipped, numerically superior armies. Israel tripled in size in six days. They didn't keep any but a tiny sliver of the lands they conquered because they would rather have peace.

Today, the situation is no longer so clear cut as it seemed back then. Israel is now more powerful than the surrounding states due to American backing. Do they attack these others in retribution for previous aggression? No. For the cries of "Perish Judea" that still resound in many of these states? No. For the non-recognition of the right of Israel to exist? No. Yet they get the blame while the other side gets none and leaves it to Israel to fix the problem they essentially created. Unfair? Indeed. But that is the current situation. If the Palestinians recognize the Israels right to exist, peace is possible. But isn't it strange that the other countries that make up around 80% of what was Palestine are recognized as having the right to exist while the 20% occupied by Israel does not? Why are they not hated by the Palestinians? It seems that the us against them mentality has so completely pervaded Palestinian society that they don't even wonder about these things.

To conclude, the problems of today regarding the Palestinians should first be solved by the Palestinians themselves before they point the finger at Israel saying, "Why aren't you solving our problems for us?" As if the existence of Israel was even their problem to begin with.

P.S. Try not to flame me too much on some of the things in this rather long and excessive rant as it is only my analysis of the situation and is far from as informed as it could be. If I said anything blatantly stupid I must apologize but it happens to the best of us. Peace out.

I think that it is too easy to forget the what is now referred to as Israel and the so-called "occupied territories" was called Judea, largely because the Jews had lived there for over a thousand years before Islam was concocted (I say "concocted." because Islam is an inconsistent blend of Paganism and Christianity and Judaism) and, when Islam was militaristically strong enough, took the entire area.  The terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" did not even exist before the Six-Day War in 1967. They were, in fact, mostly Jordanian Arabs. Even Hitler referred to the "Palestinians" as the "Sudeteners" and you will not find a single Arab document calling them "Palestinian," until after that war.

In brief, the entire area originally belonged to the Jews and was taken by Muslims, until it was given back to the Jews as Isreal by the U.N. in 1948, Resolution 181.  Per the the teachings of Mohammed and the Koran, once a land is taken, it is consider Muslim property forever and, if lost, Muslims are required to regain any such areas, even if it was belligerently taken in the first place. It is also noteworthy that surrounding Muslim countries have not come to the aid of the "Palestinians." It has been part of a long range jihadist strategy to take back what Islam had conquered, per its theology.

As an atheist and liberal, I find the anti-Semitism among liberals morally revolting and ignorant of Middle Eastern history. From the very beginning and without provocation, Mohammed started his war against non-Muslims, particularly the Jews, such as the Banu Qurayza, who were a prosperous and peaceful agrarian people, until he slaughtered and enslaved them, an example still followed. On an earlier thread, someone justified this atrocity by claiming that it was a time of war (as if that made it just fine), with little mention of the fact that a thieving raider (transparently celebrated in the Koran, Siras and Hadiths, Islam's own "holy" texts), Mohammed, instigated it. Denying such historical fact is similar to the politically correct, but false notions (1) that the Crusades were offensive, when they were really a belated defensive responses to 300 years of Islamic imperialism (taking North Africa, parts of Italy, all of Spain and Portugal and almost succeeding in conquering France, until Charles Martel, stopped the imperialistic advance at Tours in 732) and (2) that non-Muslims have ever been treated well under Muslim rule. The list of "dhimmi" humiliations is well documented, continues today and is completely contrary to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Not only does Israel have a right to exist, it has been rightly their land for thousands of years, long before Islam and its fascism and jihadism came along to rear its totalitarian head. Moderation will not stop what has gone on for 1400 years and peace is literally impossible, since Mohammed allowed only ten year truces (peace treaties), until such time that the Muslim side is strong enough to strike again and win. The really tragic part is that the West is funding Islamic jihad in the name of "humanitarian aid." We should start calling it what they call it privately, "jizya," the poll tax that "dhimmis" pay to not be harmed by Muslim terrorism and stop paying it. Israel deserves our support. Perhaps, the "Palestinian people" can immigrate to Muslim countries, given that the Jews (all non-Muslims unwilling to accept dhimmitude, for that mater) have been forced to leave Muslim controlled countries, under threat of death, subjugation or torture (put that up against Israel's alleged injustices against the "Palestinians"). The plight of the "Palestinians" should be no less important to the U.N. than, for example, the current Muslim genocide of the Christian Sudanese or of the past Armenian genocide under Turkish Muslims (Turkey is still in denial) or of the current persecution of Christians by Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza or the destruction of non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim countries today. One final note: as for Muslims attacking what we call civilians, no such distinction exists in Islam, since all non-Muslims are considered vile and worthy of death simply for not following Islam's false creed. The recent Christian convert's treatment in Afghanistan is not an aberration in Islam, but shows its true face. How is Israel to deal with an enemy that will not give up, until it is destroyed? To ignore Islamic theology's role in the conflict is naive.

Let the takiyya and kitman (deception used for conquest justified in the Koran) begin! LOL!

hey, let's all kiss and make up! www.prophetmohammed.co.uk love, mo (pbum) may allah bless you all with a thousand camels

Let's all kiss and make up? LOLOLOL That's sweet. You aren't suggesting some kind of orgy, are you? Ok, just kidding I hope you know, but I am an infidel. :) No problem, though, really. It is only those who never use any logical thought processes who are a problem.

an orgy would be very unislamic and therefore i cannot condone such naughtiness. however, infidels can be cool too and you sound like a very cool infidel to me ;o)