malone

These comments are, at best, incoherent. Firstly, the Palestinian have plenty of weapons. The US isn't the only country capable of supplying arms, you know. Try Iran, or Syria, or Lybia, or the black market, for Christ's sake. You're not that naive, surely. Now to suggest that the only way Palestinians "can retaliate" is to use suicide bombers is to demonstrate a tremendous lack of confidence in the intelligence of the Palestinan people, or in their imagination. And if you truly believe this, as opposed to, say, just trotting it out because you think it's jaw-dropper, then I must say you don't have a whole lot of imagination yourself. If the Palestinians need prompting in this regard, there are countless example of "armed struggle" to choose from, some quite successful, that have not debased their "cause" by such foul deeds. And attempting to suggest that this is only so because these others hadn't to deal with an enemy as ferocious as Israel is simply laughable, so don't go there. I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can believe that deliberately blowing innocent civilians to pieces is an act of war or self-defence. It surely requires feats of mental contortion that I, and so many others, thankfully, have never been able to perform. It is not the "cause" that makes one a terrorist, but, rather, the methods. So if you'd be good enough to explain to us how these acts constitute a legitimate response to Israeli "agression" than I'd be happy to learn. Why stop calling "the real leaders of Palestine" terrorists, if by their acts that's what they are. Is labelling them thus offensive in you mind?? If the term is harsh, then how much more harsh the deeds that earned this term of opprobrium???!! The statement that Israel is killing many more "civilians" than the Palestinians warrants some elaboration. For example, whom do you consider a civilian?? Are you going to break down the figures for us into categories that have some bearing on your statement. I don't have those figures, do you?? Do you know the make-up of, say, the number of deaths on the Palestinian side who were deliberately killed by the Israeli's because they were "civilians" as opposed to being members of terrorist organizations; the numbers of Palestinian deaths that were due to cross-fire and nobody knows for sure who's responsible, but because they are Palestinian, they are presumed to be the victims of Israeli agression? The number who were suicide bombers? How can you make a blanket statement like you did, presumably to make the Israeli's appear the agressor, without even begining to answer these questions. Are all Palestinians civilians, who are not PA forces? Well?? The Israeli's have always denied having a policy of targeting innocent civilians, and have on several occasions apologized for causing civilian casualties. Civilians die in all such conflicts. That's a sad fact of war. And as you pointed out yourself, the Israeli's have a definite advantage in materiel, leading one to conclude that they must be exercising great restraint. Restraint, as opposed to recklessly targeting innocent civilians. After 18 months of conflict, the Palestinian death toll could well be in the hundreds of thousands, If Israeli's military capacity was unleashed on the civilian population. Clearly, nothing approaching this has happened, as intentional civilian deaths are not part of Israel's plan. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, though, the same cannot be said for the Palestinians. Not only are civilians considered as "legitimate targets," they are, with a few rare exceptions, the sole target. And therein lies the difference. It's not that Palestinians are not seen as been entitled to a seperate State, It's that Israel cannot permit that State to exist as a threat to itself. When the Palestinians abandon their dream of destroying Israel, then they may employ their considerable destructive energies in pursuit of a more constructive enterprise. Finally, your reference to the World Wars is lost on me, as I don't know the context from which they are derived. It would enhance clarity were you to be more meticulous with such references in future, maybe even including the original Quote.

Listen, somuchcrap, one thing's for sure: you're a big baby. I've read through all of your posts on this topic and besides the very obvious fact that you're barely literate, it would be fair to say your IQ hovers somewhere below room temperature. A lot of growing up to do. You are an embarrasment even to the discredited cause you espouse.

Truth be told, you really don't want an answer, now do you?? After all you've made your own mind up: It's to hide "more of his war crimes." This from a guy who thinks suicide killings is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And your earlier post suggesting reading news sounds hollow indeed, coming as it does from someone with your obvious dearth of insight. And when we're at it: When was the last time cameras were permitted to view the terrorist conducting an operation??Remember now, Daniel Pearl having his throat slit, and his head cut off doesn't count in this one.

1. You didn't point out "all things taking place in Palestine", you pointed out the things that you say the Israelis are responsible for. 2. Sharon did not stop Arafat from traveling to the Arab summit. 3. You talk about "getting to the roots of the problem", while you yourself point to the symptoms, and completely ignore the roots in the Arab mindset that could never tolerate Israels presence. 4. What is the humiliation that has been inflicted on the Palestinians that is SO great, that is SO beyond anything the world has ever experienced, that leads them to commit these savage atrocities against innocent civilians? Israel has had to deal, for more than fifty years, with a constant onslaught of violence directed both against the state and civilians, from its Arab neighbors, and all this while nobody has thought to excuse their response on the grounds of humiliation. This "humiliation" mindset has a lot more to do with the inability to come to terms with Israels success, than with anything inflicted by Israel itself. If the Arabs want peace with Israel, then they need to stop brainwashing generation upon generation of their people about the evils of the Jewish people. Witness the most recent calumnies out of the Saudi Royal family-controlled press. Instead of harping on ad nauseam about Israel this and Israel that, why don't they take a good look in the mirror, and see what needs to be redressed in their societies. They might start by asking "How come there is not one democratic Arab country in the world?" How come THIS humilation hasn't led to suicide attacks in Arab countries? How come Kuwait kicking out all 300,000 Palestinian refugees after the Gulf War hasn't led to any condemnations, international outrage or the kind of "humilation" that leads desperate people to suicide bombings? And what about the Arab goons burning down synagogues and attacking Jews in France? What "humiliations" did the French Jews inflict upon these people, I ask? And would you be good enough to elaborate for us what "basic needs" the Palestinians are missing that is so devastating to cause them to take their own lives and the lives of a hell of a lot of completely innocent civilians? My God, with this line of thinking, the death toll of Ethiopia and Sudan would rise into the millions through suicide bombings alone! No, no, there is something else entirely afoot here, and when you remove your blinders, maybe we can discuss it further.

Eh, sorry old chap, but you've just put the cart before the horse. You ought to try one of those "memory" courses they're always touting on late-night tv. Back to square one for you.

So finally you've come around to Breaksny's point of view. There were absolutely no problems prior to Sharon coming to the Prime-ministership of Israel. Good to know. So we shall look forward to the end of his term in office then. That way we are then assured of a problem-free relationship between the two communities. Can hardly wait.

Well let's see now. What are you going to do, raver, if your family are butchered while going to a restaurant for an evening meal?? And you live in a country that has never known peace because you are surrounded by people who don't even think you have a right to exist?? And that your homeland was attacked on several occasions by the armies of all these countries?? Are you just going to sit there and think: "...oh, of course, they have to do this...it's not their fault?" Or are you going to get angry?? Yes, I firmly believe the Palestinians are victims in all of this. But no more so than the Israeli's. The difference is that the Palestinians can never move beyond this state so long as they deny Israel's right to exist. That denial has lead to them carrying on a campaign of violence against Israeli civilians for decades now, and has got them nowhere, except to worsen their plight. Some day, no doubt, the Palestinians will have their own State, and when they do they wiil certainly take every measure to guard that State against aggresion, foreign and domestic. And if it's like every other Arab State, soon it will be a corrupt kleptocracy. Which won't trouble you in the least. But that State, if it is to survive, must come to terms with the reality of Israel's existence. In fact it won't come into being without this fundamental shift in thinking. That you can take to the bank. Now, answer me this: Why are Palestinians siting in refugee camps eating one meal a day more than five decades after their original displacement??Five decades?? Come on, are you telling me that that's not a "stick" to constantly beat the Israeli's with?? Are you trying to say that that's not as a deliberate policy by Arab nations to keep this issue as a permanent festering sore?? All the millions upon millions of refugees in Europe after the war were settled within ten years after the war, and these people are still in refugee camps eating one meal a day?? Three generations of the same family eating one meal a day after all these years?? Something's rotten in Denmark, alright.

Explain how killing civilians by one side in a war is "100 times worse" than the same act commited by the other side. But judging from the content of you post history is definitely not your forte so I don't suppose we should expect too much in the way of elaboration. Strangely you seem to tkink that it's ok to blow civilians to pieces because of acts commited by a "foreign force." If what Israel has done in the West Bank justifies suicide attacks on civilians then one can only expect the entire Middle East to end in total conflagration. Afterall no other regime in the region would tolerate anything near what Israel has had to endure. In fact they won't even tolerate their own people deciding if they are fit to remain in government.

Talk abou a one-sided portrayal. It means that women won't get to give birth at hospitals because they will be blown to pieces in the local food market. It means that ten year old boys will be decapitated as they play with friends because someone has deemed civilians "legitimate" targets, young and old alike, so long as they are Jews. Getting them young, eh?? Well, if I saw one image of a young Palestinian carrying guns or marching in "military" processions, I've seen a thousand. So I guess someone thinks it's desirable to get 'em young. You seem to think the Israeli's must accept any amount of attacks on it civilians but have no right to respond. In case you haven't noticed, the Israeli's are not up against a bunch of stone-throwers here. Though perhaps you'd like the world to believe otherwise.

The biggest balls in the world, eh?? Even the female ones?? Bin Laden is quite opposed to the US presence on holy Saudi soil, which he deems as sacrilege. That was the primary reason for his assualts on the US, both here and its overseas interests . But I find it instructive that you would give "credit" to those who would butcher innocent civilians while decrying the Israeli's who would stand up to these brutes. You have certainly managed to convey an image of someone with a serious moral deficit. I suppose the US should have stayed out of the Second World War also. Messing with those Nazis was HELL. Oh, and those Japanese Kamikaze Pilots! Whew!! Hey, come to think of it , they should never have messed with the darn British either. That HELLISH war went on for seven HELLISH years. And the civil war?? Those fucking slaves caused all those problems. Well, I guess, we shall decide all future decisions of this country baced on whether we are likely to provoke the ire of some sick suicidal fucks "with the most biggest balls in the world." In fact, why not just dispense with democracy, and simply hire a panel of "experts" to determine if any of our policies are likely to offend anyone who might be inclined to spontaneously combust on our soil.

Just a little curious about this one, so maybe you'd indulge me for a moment. When you say "we put them there" what exactly do you mean?? In other words: it seems like you're saying that the United States was the one who somehow created the State of Israel. But I can't be sure that that is in fact what you mean, so I was wondering if youl'd mind clarifying that point. I can't imagine you'd be so willing to publicly parade your ignorance of history in this manner. Who knows.

When you overcome your childish need to label those with whom you disagree as bigots, racists and agents of Mossad you may take care then to formulate a coherent thought on the matter at hand. Whether you wish to call what Israel is doing right or wrong is really beside the point. But to imagine for a moment that Israel is not going to take whatever measures are necessary to secure its existence is just plain folly. Last week Arafat offered a complete ceas-fire after the Passover carnage. Most likely he did so realizing the Israeli response to the massacre would be ferocious. It was, however, too little too late. Yet the mere fact that Arafat made the offer at all was indication enough that he felt he could deliver. So why did he not deliver before?? Isn't it because he believes that his political situation is advanced by the actions of the suicide bombers?? That he in fact supports it, and has no intention of doing any thing to end it. Unless, that is, the price of doing nothing becomes unbearably high, as it may now be. Arafat did not use his police to end terrorism against the Israeli's, therefore they served no function in this regard as far as Israel is concerned. So the Israeli's shall commence the dismantling of Arafat's apparatus to insure that it, at least, will not be used against them. It then, further, becomes necessary for Israel to do the job the Palestinians were never willing to do: apprehend those responsible for the attacks against Israeli's citizens.The Israeli government, accountable to its people, is charged with the security of its people. At this present time it has no option but to take any and all measures to secure these noble goals. We here would expect no less of our own Government. Why would one think Israel should be any different??

And all this after watching the news, mind you. Perhaps, though, you might watch the news a little more carefully in future. Or just simply watch the news a little more, period. Then you might eventually learn that Sharon is not a "President" but a Prime Minister. That we don't generally shoot people for looking like "the hunchback of notredam." That who is and who his not a "war criminal" is usually determined by a court of law and not by someone on a message board. That as the "jewish people" didn't cause the last world war your imputation that they are "gonna cause another world war" is nothing more than a vile, repugnant and extremely ill-informed calumny. You blame the Jews for all the problems and call them "fucking idiots." Yet strangely, before you became so well schooled on events in the Middle East after watching the news (once??) you say you thought the Israeli's were "angels." Really!! The only relevant question then becomes: Who is really the fucking idiot here???

Well as usual you've sought to air-brush the Palestinian violence completely out of the picture. I have not seen one post yet, not one, where you did not say that the problem was the result of Israeli action, or more specifically, the fault of Sharon. You'd think the Palestinians were still hurling stones here. I realize that it is quite difficult to convince civilized people that WILLFULLY killing as many Jewish civilians as possible is part of some great cause. You, therefore, have managed to completely ignore the nasty matter, and proceed to pretend that the Israeli's are back in the "West Bank" simply out of badness. But this self- delusion only serves to expose your perfideous agenda. Either that or you are completely vacuous. And don't talk nonsense about International law. Must every law go unenforced except the ones that apply to Israel?? Who in the "international" community has had to endure wave after wave of suicide attacks on their civilian population?? France?? I don't think so. But when France had a problem in Algeria, or more accurately when the Algerians had a problem with France, the French were less than concerned with the niceties of International law. And the same can be said of the British and all the rest. So we can take it all with a grain of salt. It's all very fine playing by the book when both sides have the same rule book. It's a little different when a Passover sedar is considered a "legitimate target." If Israeli forces are acting barbarically, as you say, then are we entitled to conclude that you don't feel the actions of the Palestinians are also barbaric?? When Israeli civilians are deliberately targeted for suicide bombings, as the Palestinians have undeniably done, and someone discussing this situation cannot even bring himself to condemn these deeds, nay, even mention them, I don't feel too compelled to treat that person as a someone other than a completely biased individual, with absolutely no insight beyond that mandated by his rigorous ideological bent. Your convoluted reference to an "apartheidistic ethnic state" was to Jordan or Iraq?? Or was that Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran or Egypt or kuwait?? You have to be a little more clear with your derogations when there are just so many States in the region to choose from. A democracy, on the other hand, you know, where the people have an opportunity to decide whom they wish to represent them, has but one flag bearer in the entire region. And even you breaksny, ought to know who that is. And this democracy, surrounded as it is on all sides by countries who never wanted, or accepted its presence, is now in a fight for its very existence. The US government supports that existence which no doubt bothers some people, but nobody whom we should care too much for. And when the US itself was threatened it responded much more harshly than Israel currently is responding to a similar threat. It went to Afganistan and dropped bombs by the plane load and removed the despicable Taliban from that country. No doubt the success of the US in this matter bothered you and others, but given your barely-concealed contempt for this country, that's hardly surprising or indeed relevant. Nor is your contempt for Israel's right to defend itself. Your concern is for those who would, given the chance, destroy Israel. And indeed, for that matter, those who would destroy this country. If memory serves me correctly, several weeks ago you were harping on about what you perceived as injustice against the prisoners in cuba. No, not the ones held by Castro, mind you, as they're housed in five star accomodation, and don't merit any concern, but the ones under the care of the savage Americans. Sometimes you've just gotta pity the left. How mightily they have fallen. Now they've been reduced to pleading the cause of a bunch of suicidal fanatics, tyrants and rogue operators, where once they ran entire Continents.

THE ARAB/ MUSLIM NAZI CONNECTION Arab leaders and media outlets have long been addicted to comparing Israel to the Nazi regime, while at the same time demeaning the extent of the Holocaust. This obsession with defaming and antagonizing the Jewish people and state was on full display in recent months and reached a crescendo – or rather nadir – the day before Pope John Paul II visited the Temple Mount during his Holy Land pilgrimage. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, just hours before hosting the Pope, gave a series of press interviews, first telling the AP: "The figure of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust is exaggerated and is used by the Israelis to gain international support… It's not my problem. Muslims didn't do anything on this issue. It's the doing of Hitler who hated the Jews," asserted the acid-tongued Mufti – a figure appointed by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. "Six million? It was a lot less," Sabri repeated for an Italian newspaper. "It's not my fault if Hitler hated the Jews. Anyway, they hate them just about everywhere." The Mufti finished the day with Reuters, charging, "We denounce all massacres, but I don't see why a certain massacre should be used for political gain and blackmail." However, as a matter of record, there was a well-documented, thriving relationship between the Arab/Muslim world and Nazi Germany, with perhaps the most significant figure linking Hitler to the Middle East being none other Sabri's very own predecessor, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini. Here is a brief review of that dark, overlooked chapter in history. The Führer's Mufti: After World War I, the Great Powers of Europe jockeyed for influence in the Middle East's oil fields and trade routes, with France and Britain holding mandates throughout most of the region. In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the area, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq – another of Her Majesty's mandates – where he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin. Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world. Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home. To show gratitude towards his hosts, in 1943 the Mufti travelled several times to Bosnia, where on orders of the SS he recruited the notorious "Hanjar troopers," a special Bosnian Waffen SS company which slaugh-tered 90% of Bosnia's Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages. These Bosnian Muslim recruits rapidly found favor with SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden. The only condition the Mufti set for his help was that after Hitler won the war, the entire Jewish population in Palestine should be liquidated. After the war, Husseini fled to Switzerland and from there escaped via France to Cairo, were he was warmly received. The Mufti used funds received earlier from the Hilter regime to finance the Nazi-inspired Arab Liberation Army that terrorized Jews in Palestine. The Arab Embrace of Nazism: Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPS – which still receives its orders from Damascus – was involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel. The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans – like "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria. After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footsteps – was to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resides today. Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism." These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salute - the right arm raised straight and upward. The PLO and notably Arafat himself do not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

The History and Meaning of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" "There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nation . . . Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews . . . . Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us? "The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity." ---- Golda Meir quoted by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 25 November 1995 Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. -- from "Myths of the Middle East", Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000 From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries . . . . -- Professor Bernard Lewis, Commentary Magazine, January 1975 Talk and writing about Israel and the Middle East feature the nouns "Palestine" and Palestinian", and the phrases "Palestinian territory" and even "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory". All too often, these terms are used with regard to their historical or geographical meaning, so that the usage creates illusions rather than clarifies reality. WHAT DOES "PALESTINE" MEAN? It has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. The word itself derives from "Peleshet", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". The name began to be used in the Thirteenth Century BCE, for a wave of migrant "Sea Peoples" who came from the area of the Aegean Sea and the Greek Islands and settled on the southern coast of the land of Canaan. There they established five independent city-states (including Gaza) on a narrow strip of land known as Philistia. The Greeks and Romans called it "Palastina". The Philistines were not Arabs, they were not Semites. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina" derived from the Peleshet. HOW DID THE LAND OF ISRAEL BECOME "PALESTINE"? In the First Century CE, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. After the failed rebellion of Bar Kokhba in the Second Century CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived still alive and free left the devastated country, but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land. There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly. THE HISTORY OF PALESTINE Thousands of years before the Romans invented "Palastina" the land had been known as "Canaan". The Canaanites had many tiny city-states, each one at times independent and at times a vassal of an Egyptian or Hittite king. The Canaanites never united into a state. After the Exodus from Egypt probably in the Thirteenth Century BCE but perhaps earlier -- , the Children of Israel settled in the land of Canaan. There they formed first a tribal confederation, and then the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the post-biblical kingdom of Judea. From the beginning of history to this day, Israel-Judah-Judea has the only united, independent, sovereign nation-state that ever existed in "Palestine" west of the Jordan River. (In biblical times, Ammon, Moab and Edom as well as Israel had land east of the Jordan, but they disappeared in antiquity and no other nation took their place until the British invented Trans-Jordan in the 1920s.) After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin". In that period, much of the mixed population of Palastina converted to Islam and adopted the Arabic language. They were subjects of a distant Caliph who ruled them from his capital, that was first in Damascus and later in Baghdad. They did not become a nation or an independent state, or develop a distinct society or culture. In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, but never developed a national identity. It remained a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Mameluks, ethnically mixed slave-warriors whose center was in Egypt, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul. During the First World War, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. At the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and among its subject provinces "Palestine" was assigned to the British, to govern temporarily as a mandate from the League of Nations. THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME Travellers to Palestine from the Western world left records of what they saw there. The theme throughout their reports is dismal: The land was empty, neglected, abandoned, desolate, fallen into ruins. Nothing there [Jerusalem] to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds. -- English pilgrim in 1590 The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population" -- British consul in 1857 There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] -- not for 30 miles in either direction. . . . One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a moldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely... -- Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867 The restoration of the "desolate and unlovely" land began in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century with the first Jewish pioneers. Their labors created newer and better conditions and opportunities, which in turn attracted migrants from many parts of the Middle East, both Arabs and others. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, confirmed by the League of Nations Mandate, commited the British Government to the principle that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object... " It was specified both that this area be open to "close Jewish settlement" and that the rights of all inhabitants already in the country be preserved and protected. Mandate Palestine originally included all of what is now Jordan, as well as all of what is now Israel, and the territories between them. However, when Great Britain's protégé Emir Abdullah was forced to leave the ancestral Hashemite domain in Arabia, the British created a realm for him that included all of Manfate Palestine east of the Jordan River. There was no traditional or historic Arab name for this land, so it was called after the river: first Trans-Jordan and later Jordan. By this political act, that violated the conditions of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, the British cut more than 75 percent out of the Jewish National Home. No Jew has ever been permitted to reside in Trans-Jordan/Jordan. Less than 25 percent then remained of Mandate Palestine, and even in this remnant, the British violated the Balfour and Mandate requirements for a "Jewish National Home" and for "close Jewish settlement". They progressively restricted where Jews could buy land, where they could live, build, farm or work. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel was finally able to settle some small part of those lands from which the Jews had been debarred by the British. Successive British governments regularly condemn their settlement as "illegal". In truth, it was the British who had acted illegally in banning Jews from these parts of the Jewish National Home. WHO IS A PALESTINIAN? During the period of the Mandate, it was the Jewish population that was known as "Palestinians" including those who served in the British Army in World War II. British policy was to curtail their numbers and progressively limit Jewish immigration. By 1939, the White Paper virtually put an end to admission of Jews to Palestine. This policy was imposed the most stringently at the very time this Home was most desperately needed -- after the rise of Nazi power in Europe. Jews who might have developed the empty lands of Palestine and left progeny there, instead died in the gas chambers of Europe or in the seas they were trying to cross to the Promised Land. At the same time that the British slammed the gates on Jews, they permitted or ignored massive illegal immigration into Western Palestine from Arab countries Jordan, Syria, Egypt, North Africa. In 1939, Winston Churchill noted that "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied . . . ." Exact population statistics may be problematic, but it seems that by 1947 the number of Arabs west of the Jordan River was approximately triple of what it had been in 1900. The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in Palestine, until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into Palestine "displaced" the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugees". Casual use of population statistics for Jews and Arabs in Palestine rarely consider how the proportions came to be. One factor was the British policy of keeping out Jews while bringing in Arabs. Another factor was the violence used to kill or drive out Jews even where they had been long established. For one example: The Jewish connection with Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua long before it was King David's first capital. In 1929, Arab rioters with the passive consent of the British -- killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish community. For another example: In 1948, Trans-Jordan seized much of Judea and Samaria (which they called The West Bank) and East Jerusalem and the Old City. They killed or drove out every Jew. It is now often proposed as a principle of international law and morality that all places that the British and the Arabs rendered Judenrein must forever remain so. In contrast, Israel eventually allotted 17 percent of Mandate Palestine has a large and growing population of Arab citizens. FROM PALESTINE TO ISRAEL What was to become of "Palestine" after the Mandate? This question was taken up by various British and international commissions and other bodies, culminating with the United Nations in 1947. During the various deliberations, Arab officials, spokesmen and writers expressed their views on "Palestine". "There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it." -- Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not" -- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian to Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946 "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." -- Ahmed Shukairy, United Nations Security Council, 1956 By 1948, the Arabs had still not yet discovered their ancient nation of Falastin. When they were offered half of Palestine west of the Jordan River for a state, the offer was violently rejected. Six Arab states launched a war of annihilation against the nascent State of Israel. Their purpose was not to establish an independent Falastin. Their aim was to partition western Palestine amongst themselves. They did not succeed in killing Israel, but Trans-Jordan succeeded in taking Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and East Jerusalem, killing or driving out all the Jews who had lived in those places, and banning Jews of all nations from Jewish holy places. Egypt succeeded in taking the Gaza Strip. These two Arab states held these lands until 1967. Then they launched another war of annihilation against Israel, and in consequence lost the lands they had taken by war in 1948. During those 19 years, 1948-1967, Jordan and Egypt never offered to surrendar those lands to make up an independent state of Falastin. The "Palestinians" never sought it. Nobody in the world ever suggested it, much less demanded it. Finally, in 1964, the Palestine Liberation Movement was founded. Ahmed Shukairy, who less than 10 years earlier had denied the existence of Palestine, was its first chairman. Its charter proclaimed its sole purpose to be the destruction of Israel. To that end it helped to precipitate the Arab attack on Israel in 1967. The outcome of that attack then inspired an alteration in public rhetoric. As propaganda, it sounds better to speak of the liberation of Falastin than of the destruction of Israel. Much of the world, governments and media and public opinion, accept virtually without question of serious analysis the new-sprung myth of an Arab nation of Falastin, whose territory is unlawfully occupied by the Jews. Since the end of World War I, the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa have been given independent states in 99.5 percent of the land they claimed. Lord Balfour once expressed his hope that when the Arabs had been given so much, they would "not begrudge" the Jews the "little notch" promised to them. [Note: Some of the material cited above is drawn from the book From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters.]

Wonderfully insightful, as usual. God oh God, so Sharon started the problem. Alright, now I've got to clear out a whole shelf of history books as they've been deemed worthless in one sentence. Those damn historians, they never did know what they're talking about. Not even a stone thrown while Ehud Barak was in office. And Arafat, definitely no terrorist. A modern day Ghandi, I would say. A Martin Luther King, with a headscarf. Forget his minor youthful transgressions. Forget the fact that he was attacking Israel long before the 1967 war and the occupation of the so called West Bank. Forget the fact that on umpteen occasions he has stated clearly his intentions to destroy the Israeli State. Not remove the Israelis from the West Bank, mind you, but destroy the Israeli State. He was a member of the Egyptian radical Islamic outfit, the Muslim Brotherhood. He was hijacking airplanes, back in the 60's and 70's, deliberately targeting American civilians and Jews. And that's not terrorism! His underlings in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade have been responsible for the great bulk of recent suicide bombings, all of which are directed at civilians. And he's not a terrorist. And how the fuck do YOU know what most of the world thinks? Did you take your anti-American ass all over the globe and poll these people? And here you go again with your "everyone agrees with me" bullshit. What is it with this nonsense about "everyone agrees with me"? What IS that? Do you need validation from the outside world so badly? And as to your circuitous attempt to justify 9/11, because of what was happening to the Palestinians, it's just more of the same bogus claptrap that we've come to expect from you at every turn. Bin Laden denied responsibility for 9/11. Therefore, he could not be using the Palestinian "cause" to justify this incident, now could he? But you, on the other hand, in your shameless anti Americanism, have no problem using it as an excuse/justification. Bin Laden has been clear for many years about his anti-Americanism. Apart from the obvious jealousy that so many of these people have toward the West, there's the little business of dirty, filthy American infidel troops on the holy, precious, sacrosanct soil of Saudi Arabia. But Bin Laden is not a freak. He's not even a terrorist. He's a noble man, with a noble mission. Because, following your logic, if 9/11 had its genesis in Israeli transgressions against the Palestinians, and if blowing up people at a Passover seder has its genesis in Israeli transgressions against the Palestinians, and Arafat is not a terrorist, then Osama Bin Laden must not be a terrorist either. It's probably time now for you to put your brain through the spin cycle, as it's spent way too much time in the wash cycle.

Well at last!! Finally someone figured out what's really going on. Now it's a math problem. And as soon as the Palestinians manage to equalize the death toll, everything will be hunky-dory. And of course you're right: Sharon definitely wants more suicide bombers killing innocent Israeli civillians. Why wouldn't he?? I bet he's the envy of the Western world. Imagine having men, women and children blown to pieces by these terrorists on an almost daily basis. Oh what a thrill that must be! And then the Palestinians, they know everytime they do this, the Israelis are going to respond the way they do. Thats why they do it, right? To get the Israelis to lash out, destroy their homes, kill their women and children, dismantle their infrastructure, and then they have an excuse to attack the Israelis, and on and on. They know the Israelis aren't going to stop, and thats how they want it, right? What a wonderfully simplified world we're living in-Israeli bad, Palestinian good. Glad we had you here to clarify it for us.

It's not that it's no use, It's that you were no use. You flunked the test. Sorry. Maybe this chap has more manners than you, thus ensuring a broadening of the debate. The bulk of your contribution consisted of name-calling, interspersed with the standard left-wing part line. I can get that any day of the week in "the Nation", minus the invective. Besides, didn't you promise you wouldn't be dealing with Dusted or me again, as you allegedly had better things to do. But I guess you can't resist sniping from the sidelines.

Now, now. Do I have to go through all this again, as I did on another thread? Let's cut through all the mush, shall we, and stop pretending that we're on some panel discussion where everyone has to act like we're tasked we making little sterile, inoffensive pronouncements. The reality is that Muhammed did slaughter countless of his "enemies", many of whom never were in an opposing army, and were frankly butchered because Mohammed felt like it. Now that's the whole story, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that fact. Why?? Why the deception? You say you know this "because in the Koran, it states not to kill innocent civilians". Well I guess Mohammed had special dispensation, being God's special envoy and all. I mean, that's got to count for something, right? Besides, the koran, like the bible is full if contradictions. Or maybe it is simply possible that the loophole is the word "innocent" civilian. After all these darn Infedils can't be all that "innocent", if they have regected God and his prophet. The Muslim world needs to do some serious reevaluation, if it's ever to realize peace with other communities. It must be forced to confront its demons. It doesn't need any more apologists doing its bidding for it.

Mohammed himself engaged in the wholesale slaughter of his "enemies", and much mention is made in the Quoran of destroying the enemy, holy war, subjugation of the unbelievers, and what have you. The question then becomes: Who is really "perverting" Islam-- guys like the suicide bombers who have much grounds for believing that they are following in the footsteps of Mohammed, or those who ignore the inconvenient history of their religion's founder, and proceed as if Islam was nothing more than ministrations to the souls of the faithful? This nonsense smacks of willful self-delusion. As to the analogy to the pedophile priests, it is simply inappropriate. While many within the Muslim community support violence, and see it as justified, even sanctioned by the prophet, and certainly was carried out by him, there is no equivalence within the Catholic community in support of pedophilia. In fact, not even the pedophile priest himself would attempt to make a case for his actions based on scriptures or Catholic teachings. This line of reasoning, therefore, is wholly without merit.

Yeah, Dusted, that guy is dead on target. These guys on this board, the apologists for the Muslim murders, don't want to understand this. They are in deep denial. Not because it just ain't so, but because it's all about them, now. They won't acknowledge that it's hatred of the Jews that's fueling the entire problem, combined with a large helping of jealousy of the West, especially the USA. Oh, that's just too painful. It must be something WE did. Wake up!

You guys lowered the level of civility, and used the jargon of race hustlers in an attempt to silence Dusted and myself. You clearly didn't succeed. I don't care if you call me a moron, as It's intended as a personal insult. I can handle that, no problem. My problem is with your attempt to remove this discourse from the arena of policy difference, and attempt to smear your opponents into silence a la Joseph Mc Carthy or Joseph Stalin. You would do well to distinguish between the two. And calling you a moron was certainly warranted by your behaviour and by your own incessant bad manners. Alas, you could dish it out, but could not take. And finally, at what point did you realize that you had better things to do than exchange insults?? Was it right after you realized that you had come up empty??

Okay, I accept that criticism, as I neglected to say that it was the brain that interprets the stimulation on the hearing organ, as sound. However, this oversight does not invalidate the actual point being made, which was that for sound to occur a "listener"had to be present.