PeterDavid.net

I understand, Peter. Honestly, I'm sensitive to the issue too because I have a close friend whose family is still living in Palestine. There is a larger Palestinian population that wants peace than we often hear about or realize here in the States. There is no doubt in my mind that this is due to the fact that we've always "taken sides" with Israel. I guess my point is only that there is a population on BOTH sides that don't want to see the other side dead. Until those people on both sides are empowered to do something, it's always going to be an ugly situation there. There are just as many Palestinians that think all Israelis want them all dead. Neither point of view is correct. I guess that's my point...or what I wanted to say, at least. Maybe I don't have a point.

Is this in any way news? I've been saying this for a while.

And it's not just Muslims, Europe has deeply rooted anti-semetic sentiments, so much so they can't even acknowledge anti-semitism when they see it. Do people really think that suddenly Europeans went from killing millions of Jews for fun and profit to tolerating them in 50 years? Yeah, riiiight. The Europeans really care about Palestinians. They just hate Jews so much they side with anyone who kills them, even if they're maniacal religious fanatics who would next target Christians.

And for the record, I'm not a Jew or a Christian.

The link does not seem to be working.

FYI.

Me, I never blame the people over there. On either side. I blame their faith(s). Were it not for their "religious" need to have that land... either side... this issue would not be that big. At most, we'd have another issue of one country invading and/or fighting another for land. It would just be land. But you throw in religion and it becomes a friggin' holy war. I've met people with the "Christ Killer" excuse for hating jews. I've met those twits with "Their god ain't like my god" excuse for hating Jews and everyone else. And I've met those with the "Jews control everything" excuse. They're all twits. Though it IS fun having a talk with the "christ killer" folks and try to get them to explain why that deserves hate since their little book states the NEEd for their god to die AND speaks of them as the chosen or blessed people. Usually they just walk off and NEVER talk to me again. Saves me having to tell them to do that. Anyway, I'm just saying it's all "god's" fault. Blame god. He caused this. Can anyone else see a reason they are fighting over that winning piece of property? Please let me know.

Oh, and no, I am not a christian, jew, muslim or anything else. They don't make sense. Some fun little stories and mythologies but nothing to live your life by. Besides, I respect human life to much to risk getting involved in any faith that has so many people using it as an excuse to kill people.

PAD,

I've got to ask this. I agree with everything you've said here (and with the posters above). There's too much hate in the world, and Jews have suffered as few peoples ever have.

Which is why I find it so strange that in Fallen Angel, you have Adlph Hitler as a sympathetic character. Not as a character spouting Nazi rhetoric that is finding support in Bete Noir, nothing like that. But even though you haven't had the character come out and say "I'm der Fuhrer", you've made it plainly obvious who it is. And in assisting FA, and protecting her, you protray Hitler "today" as a sympathetic character.

I obviously have no idea what you plan to do with that character, nor would I try to anticipate what you're thinking. But you talk in this post about the unfair depiction of Jews in the media, and you have the poster-child-of-hate as a secondary protagonist in your own media.

It seems strange.

What's worse is that anti-semitism, or racism of any kind for that matter, shows the willingness of someone to remain an uneducated moron. If we have enough of those people around, we end up with the Dark Ages all over again.

Me, I never blame the people over there. On either side. I blame their faith(s). Were it not for their "religious" need to have that land... either side... this issue would not be that big.

While I agree that religion has been used as an excuse for all sorts of despicable acts, I think blaming the concepts of faith and religion doesn't make a lot of sense (and let me note that I, like you, am not a part of any organized religion). If we applied your logic to racism, for example, then no one but Mother Nature is to blame for racial prejudice, because after all if everyone had the same skin color, there wouldn't be anyone to be racist towards.

I think the human animal simply needs a "they." And by "they" I mean, the other guys. The enemy. The guys from the other side of the tracks. If it isn't because they worship a different God, it's because they worship the same God a different way. If it isn't because of religion, it's because of what country they're from. It isn't because of what country they're from, it's their skin color. If it isn't their skin color, it's their sexual orientation. If it isn't their sexual orientation, it's their economic status, and so on and so on. If David Duke's wet dreams came true, and we all woke up one day as white clones of one another, all worshipping the same God, we would STILL find reasons to separate into groups and hate the guy on the other side of the proverbial tracks.

Which is why I find it so strange that in Fallen Angel, you have Adolph Hitler as a sympathetic character. Not as a character spouting Nazi rhetoric that is finding support in Bete Noir, nothing like that. But even though you haven't had the character come out and say "I'm der Fuhrer", you've made it plainly obvious who it is. And in assisting FA, and protecting her, you protray Hitler "today" as a sympathetic character.

No, I've made it plainly obvious who he *might* be. There's a vast difference.

Purely for sake of argument and speculation: Let's say he is. Which I'm not saying, but let's say. And if he is aiding the Fallen Angel, then the implication is that he's trying to do penance. To do good works. To help in the protection of the very types of innocents he would once have trod upon mercilessly. Putting forward the message that absolutely no one, no matter how evil, is incapable of being turned around, of seeking redemption in some form, and trying to find his way to the side of the angels.

Personally, I don't consider that such a terrible theme.

PAD

Damn. I need to check out this Fallen Angel book.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic (or at least 51% so), but I do believe the Palestinians and the Israelis can make peace and live together peacefully. However, I think that can only happen when the common folks on both sides -- not the politicians and the leaders -- are willing to sit together, put aside the things that both sides have done in the past, and truly work towards a solution that's fair to everyone. At the end of the day, everyone wants the same thing: peace and stability, a way to provide for themselves and their families, and a secure environment to raise their children. None of those things are dependent on faith or language or anything else that's currently dividing the two sides.

On the other hand, if I may be flippant about things for a moment, maybe the easier solution is to forcibly deport everyone from the area, fence it in, then let Disney turn it into a religiously-neutral theme park. You want to visit, you pay admission like everyone else, and troublemakers get bounced out by Goofy and Donald. Well-behaved visitors get to see the sights, go on a few rides, and max out their credit cards on souvenirs.

Hey, it beats what we've got now...

No, I've made it plainly obvious who he *might* be. There's a vast difference. Purely for sake of argument...

I figured that's what your answer would be. That's fine - I certainly trust your writing.

Personally, I don't consider that such a terrible theme.

It's not. It's a great theme. I believe that occasionally (rarely, unfortunately), people do see the error of their ways and change for the better. And if you're going to put forth the proposition that "nobody is beyond redemption", you certainly can't do it better than by choosing Hitler to demonstrate that point.

Of course, the thought has also occurred to me that Hitler/not-Hitler could also be siding with FA to gain her trust for nefarious reasons. With all the rampant speculation of FA's prior history, it makes it interesting to think that Hitler might be getting on the good side of a blonde-haired Superman, sorry Supergirl, for some reason other than redemption.

But, I see I'm going off-track of this post. I'm done. Thanks for the reply.

Jam's statement above is absolutely correct.

Reading the article Peter linked us to reminds me of one of the key points to propaganda: Always develop sympathy for your side. Often this is done by portraying your opponent as winning the fight and being a bully and your side is the honorable victim losing the fight. Most people root for the underdog, its just the way of human nature. I think that is why so many people hate the Yankees. So, it stands to reason that muslim leaders want to portray the jewish people as having all this power and abusing it, while the muslim peoples are the victims. I remember a statement in my psychology text that summs up propaganda quite well, "If you repeat a statement enough times, no matter how absurd that statement is, people will come to believe it is true."

Isnt the best argument against a global conspiracy government (jewish or otherwise) that...well if there were a world-wide controlling agency, wouldnt they be doing a much better job of it!?!

If you repeat a statement enough times, no matter how absurd that statement is, people will come to believe it is true."

By interesting coincidence, Michael Moore uses that very quote in regards to the Bush administration in his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country."

It was certainly applied enough in the most recent Presidential election. For instance, Al Gore *never* said he invented the Internet. He said he was an early supporter who backed legislation that helped it. Absolutely true. But the lie supplanted the truth to such a degree that even Gore wound up making joking references to how he invented the internet rather than take on the hopeless task of setting the record straight.

PAD

I find it truly disturbing that the same piece of propoganda, The Protocals of the Elders of Zion, is still being used as solid evidence against Jewish people. Its amazing that so many people, even highly educated and intelligent people are using this document as evidence of a global conspiracy that the world is being secretly run by the Jews. This is the document that Hitler used to fuel the fires of the Holocaust. So how can anyone use this piece of garbage as viable evidence for hate? Hate turns the most rational people into irrational fools.

Of course, if the world was run by Jews I think they would have enough power to squash down their adversaries and naysayers. People are so desperate when times are rough that they feel it is easy to go for a culture that they do not understand. It seems that when we are in times of economic crisis this docment magically seems to surface again. People cling to it like it was some biblical truth.

Its a sad world when people find it is easier to hate than to love. Its also easier to point the finger than take responsibility.

RE: Al Gore, I believe that he also coined the term "information superhighway". If I recall correctly, it was related in part to his father being involved in (automotive) superhighway funding when he was in Congress.

First, the TV show. Here's what the excellent conspiracy book EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL, by Robert Anton Wilson, says about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: "TPOTEOZ, although proven to be a forgery to the satisfaction of academic historians, still enjoys a wide popularity... When meeting people who believe in the PROTOCOLS and trying to tell them it has been proven a forgery, I always hear the same counterargument: 'Well, if it's a forgery, how come so much of it has already come true?'" When it comes to prophesies, people will seize upon ANY possible evidence as proof, no matter how much counterevidence exists. (The worst example of this I can think of are the Holocaust deniers, who somehow say all the bodies and gas chambers and verification by every nation are a giant movie set.)

Will the Jews and Muslims ever coexist? Yes and no. On the one hand, they do -- here in America. Plenty of businesses, towns, government offices, and other locations have Jews and Muslims working together, doing business together, spending time together. While there are hate crimes, I think it's worked better than worse here.

Unfortunately, in Israel and the surrounding areas, there's a fundamental problem. As I understand it -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Israelis claim Israel as their permanent homeland, while Muslims believe the Israelis stole the land from them. Further, there's a very large circle of violence: One side attacks, the other relatiates, then there's a relatiation for the retaliation... And if one side stops the violence, it's only a short time before the other side attacks, and it begins again. It's hard to imagine a peaceful resolution there, where both sides agree on who gets what land.

The only hope I have comes from Roman Catholics and Protestants. A few centuries ago, these two religions absolutely loathed each other. Wars were fought between them, members of one faith detested the other, and even liberal autohrs like Jonathan Swift would put down Roman Catholics mercilessly. At the time, it must have seemed that it would be an eternal war. Now, the conflicts between the two sides are almost exclusively resigned to debates, as it should be.

BTW, I'm an agnostic, and I agree wholeheartedly with Graham Chapman: "It's like I always say, there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he's really not sure whether he believes in anything or not."

There is a larger Palestinian population that wants peace than we often hear about or realize here in the States. There is no doubt in my mind that this is due to the fact that we've always "taken sides" with Israel.

This is absolutely true, and underlines just why it's so hard for the United States to help broker a peace process. Even those Palestinians who find the actions of Hamas to be anti-Islamic at best and inhuman at worst find it hard to trust a country that has long invested time, money, and weaponry in the Israeli government.

This isn't going to get any better with fundamentalist Christians running the show in Washington; since the whole end-times scenario demands that Israel survive--not for the sake of the Jews, mind you, but for the sake of the Rapture.

One of the reasons crap like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continues to float around is because Zionism was a tremendously successful movement. They kept a steady flow of Jews moving to Palestine between the wars and then after WWII made sure the world didn’t forget it’s collective responsibility for the Holocaust. I’ve often said that if the Palestinians had any sort of true leadership the occupation would be over in a few hours. Can you a half million Palestinians marching peacefully to Al Aqsa? Does anyone really believe the IAF would be able to or want to stop a large-scale non-violent Palestinian movement?

Well a man can dream can’t he?

Milhouse/Moses: So what’s next the land of milk and honey?

Lisa/Aaron: Actually 40 years wandering in the desert.

Milhouse/Moses: Well after that it’s smooth sailing for the Jews, right?

Lisa/Aaron: Heh heh, yeah sure.

This isn't going to get any better with fundamentalist Christians running the show in Washington; since the whole end-times scenario demands that Israel survive--not for the sake of the Jews, mind you, but for the sake of the Rapture.

Um...I missed that X-Files episode. So, are you saying the Illuminati don't control washington? What about the freemasons do they know about this? Or are they all the same? Or is it all an alien conspiracy? Those christians are pretty sneaky. Are they competing with the jews for global control? Will people please get it staright about who is running the world! My money in on the smiley guy from Neil Gaiman's Sandman.

Well, that certainly looks familar... take a look at this, I'm sure they'd approve:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/thumb.htm

i've found this an interesting read. while not completely aware of the israeli/palestianian situation i've noticed people voicing the similar thoughts. one person summed it up nicely with something along the lines of it not being about skin colour or religion or sexual orientation or disability but about culture which wholly encompasses all those mentioned above and many more.

someone said no one has had it as bad as the jews. that may be but what about all of the indiginous (sp) people who were colonised? i know my country is still feeling the affects of such colonisation which happened around 1840. every country that has indiginous people can relate its at varying degrees but it still affects them today.

i also agree with what Robert Jung said about it having to be the people AND those in "power" who get together and come to the table. if everyone buys into something it is more likely to work.

i think cultural safety might be something that would apply well here. knowing what you yourself brings to the table and knowing what everyone else does so you can acknowledge and respect it. you won't be able to predict anything but so long as you know that in this space you (your culture/beliefs) will be safe then you are more open to such things. who wants to be in a room with someone who says 'i blame religions and god for war' do you really thing you would listen to them? no, i don't think so.

i just want to add a story i heard the other day, something to think about from a cultural safety course i attended. yes an empowering story....

a man was walking along a beach and saw a spindly thing that was doing something he didn't understand. when he got closer he saw it was a boy throwing starfish into the sea. the area of the beach he was on was covered with millions of starfish. he watched the boy for awhile as he bent down, picked up a starfish and threw it into the sea. finally he asked what the boy was doing.

'i'm throwing the starfish back into the sea so they won't die.'

the man immediately replied with, 'why bother? you won't make a difference.'

the boy looked at the man as he threw another starfish into the sea, 'well i made a difference for that one.' he threw in another, 'and that one...'

its daytime for me you guys are all asleep so it looks like i post often :P

i just wanted to make another comment (because i can). regarding what someone above said. this is very hard to put into the right words but...

if someone put down my beliefs in such a manner as was described above, i would walk away from them too. why? because they weren't someone with whom i would wish to associate. yes they have their own opinion and they are entitled to that. but if someone was so caught up with what my faith/beliefs may or may not have caused (for good or bad) instead of me as an individual then why should i have to listen to them? they don't respect me because of a prejudice or stereotype they might have.

that probably didn't come out right.

and i also feel compelled to point out that i don't believe in a god or have a religion as such. you could say however that my beliefs have been picked up from what i've chosen to take on board from others, my experiences and tv :)

oh and my dad is a born again christian. they celebrate their faith a bit differently, 'happy clappism' is what my mother calls it. and when i think about it thats something negative (parents split awhile ago) and until recently i had been calling my dad's beliefs that because thats what my mother had.

when you think about it, its so very easy to pass along your view of things (life, people, universe) to your children. your "beliefs" again for good or bad...

erk ok i'll shut up now for a bit. i get all carried away sometimes and i apologise for that, but not the intent behind what i said.

cheers

Hm. I always took Dolf in Fallen Angel to be the bastard son of Hitler.

But I've seen a lot of antiSemitism in m y life, and expect more to come, sadly.

This is really tangential, but Gore actually did say "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet." There's a good argument to be made that Gore has a legitimate claim to a significant role in promoting the internet, but that isn't what he said. (In all fairness, it might have been what he meant.)

Getting back to the real topic, I agree with PAD. In the last thread about this issue (the one that started with Jon Stewart), someone posted a link to "Little Green Footballs." Follow that link and you find a link to this page:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2003/10/me_and_my_musli.html

I frankly wouldn't blame international Zionism if they did try to take over the world in self-defense. Hell, I'd join them. Israel has been our best ally in the Middle East since its inception. Unless our imposed-at-gunpoint reforms take root in Iraq, it's going to be the only reliable democracy in the region for the foreseeable future. If the alternatives are Hamas and Syria maybe "taking sides" isn't such a bad idea.

jam above seems to think europe is full of jew hating biggots well me personally i wouldn't dare to sum up 140 million peoples views in one sort statement, because hey i mean that would be a bit concited wouldn't it and just to rub it it several european nations were fighting hitler=(EVIL) for three years before amererica got it's wake up call an historical fact that seems to missed in most holywood movies.

snap

Me, I never blame the people over there. On either side. I blame their faith(s). Were it not for their "religious" need to have that land...

This ignores one hugely important fact. Muslims have no "religious" need to have that land. Before Jews started returning to Palestine in the late nineteenth century the Arab world couldn;t have cared less about it. It was a forgotten backwater of Syria. They don't want the land so much as they don't want the Jews to have it.

1. What's "cultural safety?" A song by Men Without Hats? (I apologize halfheartedly for the unnecessary sarcasm, but I dislike buzzwords, even obscure ones.)

2. I don't understand batmansero's reference to "every country that has indiginous people." That's every country except Greenland (which is arguably still not a country). If you go back far enough every civilization on Earth is an Imperial power. We accept the Scots' displacement of the Picts as a fait accompli. For that matter Islamic imperialism took Palestine/Judea away from Jews and Christians in the time of Mohammed. Unless the passage of time legitimizes larceny in some way, we have to accept that politics are always messy and sometimes zero-sum (i.e. one party has to lose its share of a fixed amount of resources in order for another to advance-- following my own complaint about obscure buzzwords). Every nation is guilty of this to some extent. After the Holocaust a Jewish homeland was an absolute necessity, and the Palestinians in some sense got the short end of the stick. (The settlement at the end of the British Mandate would have actually been much more beneficial to the Palestinians had they and their neighbors not tried and failed to push the Israelis into the Mediterranean Sea.) The Palestinians have to accept that there are about 6,000,000 Israelis who aren't going anywhere and with whom they must negotiate. The past is immutable outside of science fiction. It's what we do next that matters.

[B]This isn't going to get any better with fundamentalist Christians running the show in Washington; since the whole end-times scenario demands that Israel survive--not for the sake of the Jews, mind you, but for the sake of the Rapture.[/B]

And this statement is diffeent than claiming a huge Jewish conspiracy that runs the entire planet?

The settlement at the end of the British Mandate would have actually been much more beneficial to the Palestinians had they and their neighbors not tried and failed to push the Israelis into the Mediterranean Sea.)

I've been doing my own little research on this conflict and read about the British offer and I was thinking the same thing as stated above. Couldn't agree more.

since the jews "rule the world" how come they keep on writing such bad shit about themselves?

while Muslims believe the Israelis stole the land from them

See, I've always found this line of thinking as very stupid.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all share some of the same "holy land".

And, yet, Judaism was first. It's also treated the most horribly by those religions that follow.

It's rather absurd. If anything, it's everybody else that's been stealing land from the Jews.

Is the Islamic population at large in the Middle East too stupid to care about this or what?

In response to David Bjorlin:

Cultural Safety - I guess you could call it a buzzword. it has been relabelled many things in the past like 'cultural awareness' 'cultural sensitivity' etc, so as not to scare people. funny how people run a mile when you say that.

so far (that i know of) the only example of Cultural Safety that is taught is in our (New Zealand) nursing system. my workplace (a school with over 600 staff) is introducing the idea of it into our organisation.

the quotes i am providing is for nursing but applies all over in theory.

From the thesis 'Cultural Safety and Nursing Education in Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu' by Irihapeti Merenia Ramsden:

'The dream of Cultural Safety was about helping the people in nursing education, teachers and students, to become aware of their social conditioning and how it affected them and therefore their practice.'

'Cultural Safety has been expanded to include all people encountered by nurses who differ in any way from the nurse. It is concerned with the unique, individual and bicultural (ie one person to one person) relationship between the nurse and the patient. However difference if expressed, whether by gender, sexuality, social class, occupational group, generation, ethnicity or a grand combination of variables, difference is acknowledged as legitimate and the nurse is seen as having the primary responsibility to establish trust.

Cultural Safety is therefore about the nurse rather than the patient. That is, the enactment of Cultural Safety is about the nurse while, for the consumer, Cultural Safety is a mechanism which allows the recipient of care to say whether or not the service is safe for them to approach and use. Safety is a subjective word deliberately chosen to give power to the consumer.'

=

David regarding your number 2 point. i didn't understand a word of it, well except for the small ones. ah except to say the only examples i know of that i was thinking about are more the white guys coming over (early brits) and colonising places like america (native american indians), new zealand (maori), australia (aborigines), india, south africa etc.

it annoys me i don't know how to do macrons on the net cause i know i'm spelling maori incorrectly. the argument i had with my web designer when he told me you couldn't do that on the web and that a line doesn't go over the 'a' in 'maori'. showed him, found him websites that had it. er yeah sorry a bit off topic.

ok more in response to David.

number 2. rereading helps with understanding. i'm a bit slow sometimes.

yes i agree in the past that one side ends up giving up land, resources and stuff. same with my country. but 'giving up' really isn't the right word. more like having it taken from you would be more accurate. or putting cyanide in flour and waiting for them to die and dragging out their bodies before you set up shop. ok that's only one example i don't know if it was repeated.

anyway i'm getting off topic. i'm saying it shouldn't happen like that. it should be that there is some give and take (and not the i'll give you 2 guns, some beer and this barbie doll for the whole of california) on both sides for the mutual benefit of all. of course you get some who are greedy and believing they are superior and you get the above stuff and more.

that cyanide stuff i only found out the other day. scary how people influence your beliefs by only telling you one side of the story.

It is truly a sad world we live in...

Hey, if I convert, can I join in this conspiracy? I'm broke and need a piece of that supposed Jew money.

I would also accept offers from the Bliderberg Group, the Tri-Lateral Comission and Skull and Bones.

Need an antagonistic internet gadfly on your conspiritorial team? I'm there, baby. As long as you don't take away my rock n' roll, comic books and mindlessly violent entertainment, I'm on your side.

I've already been writing disinformation pieces, I'll gladly continue my scoffing at the mere notion of conspiracies for a PITTANCE.

$1000 A MONTH. I'm cheap, cheap, cheap. Throw me a bone, I'm not asking for a lot, you've got TRILLIONS. I'm an extremely loyal employee and would put my mediocre talents to work for your conspiracy day and night.

I wouldn't mind a small cabin in upstate Michigan and a new computer(12" Apple PowerBook G4 with maxed out specs and a superdrive) but that's negotiable.

Actually, the computer could be like a signing bonus. I need that.

I'm serious. Really. I've got a fin in my wallet. I need some fucking money, and I don't want to work at some meaningless job.

Let me join your conspiracy. I want to be a part of the wheels that move the world!

Jamie Maynard

In case anyone didn't get it, that was a JOKE.

My understanding of Islam is limited, but I believe that Jerusalem is of great importance to the Muslim faith. It is the site of the Dome of the Rock, which I believe commemorates the spot where Muhammad ascended into the seven heavens and received a message from Allah. It is also the place where Jesus lived and died, and although he is not as important to Muslims as he is to Christians, Jesus is considered a very important prophet, as are Moses and Adam.

I have limited knowledge of the history of the region, but my understanding is that Jews and Muslims generally got along for most of their history. (There were sporadic massacres and taxes paid by non-Muslims, but compared to the treatment Jews endured in Europe, this was nothing.) The reason the Palestinians could say that the land was theirs was that the Jews had largely been dispersed by the Romans in 77AD, and only a small remnent remained. This remnent and the Muslims got along until the Zionist movement started importing millions of persecuted Jews into Palestine. I have always felt that the Muslims didn't hate the Jews because they were Jewish, but because they soon outnumbered and dominated the Palestinians in what the Palestinians considered thier land.

Consider this. You live in, say Sweeden. Cambodians persecuted by the American millitary immigrate to Sweeden in huge numbers, looking for a homeland and safety. Eventually, the Cambodians come to dominate the area, running the governmetn and instituting their language. As a Sweede, you may have no problem whatsoever with Cambodians as a people, but you might be miffed that you are now the minority in a nation that you had always considered your own.

Incidently, I always liked the origins of the word Israel. IT is the name of the father of the twelve tribes of Jews, of course, but it means "he struggled with God". It is a bit like a Muslim nation naming itself Jihad.

Ben Hunt

(who is a Christian, and should probably know better than to get his nose in a Jew/Muslim debate, but can't resist the urge to pontificate.)

All I'm going to say is that the world would be better if we all could either agree or agree to disagree. And then go to a pub, if only for a few laughs. Stopping the insanity of bigotry and killing will never happen, because you can't fix stupid, as a certain famous author once said.

PAD,

From what I've seen lately, opposition to anti-semitism and support of Israel seems to be growing on the US political right as it declines on the US political left. Do you fear a time when you may be forced to decide between voting for your principles and the safety of your relatives?

I'm not at all optimistic about the chances for peace between Israel and the palestinians. Israel is just too useful as an public "enemy" to point to for various Arab governments who fund the Palestinian Authority. I think Israel is going to face a constant low-level state of war until there is large-scale political and economic reform throughout the Arab world.

Carl Henderson

For once, I agree with a political view posted by PAD! The nation of Israel has been far from perfect and there are valid criticisms of some what they have done. But we are only now beginning to understand the fear and terror they have lived under for decades. Recent surveys demonstrate that a very significant percentage of the palestinians do not have a problem with the suicide bombings (see http://www.dawn.com/2001/06/04/int2.htm for one of many news stories on the poll). The reality is if the arab states around Israel truly agreed to let Israel exist as a nation, the fighting would end. Whether one believes it is justified or not, the palestinians and some of the surrounding arab nations have just one goal: the eradication of Israel. The same is not true for Israel -- they do not wish to eradicate anyone.

The discussion is very interesting. Before anyone else espouses on the topic, they might find it useful to locate the book:

Myths and Facts, A Guide To The Arab-Israeli Conflict, edited by Mitchell G. Bard.

It is available from the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), 2810 Blaine Drive, Chevy Chase, Md., 20815. You can also access the website http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org.

Although presented by a Jewish organization, it is the most balanced book I have ever seen regarding the situation.

It's fascinating, a great read, and you'll be speaking from a knowledgable platform once you've finished it.

[B]This isn't going to get any better with fundamentalist Christians running the show in Washington; since the whole end-times scenario demands that Israel survive--not for the sake of the Jews, mind you, but for the sake of the Rapture.[/B]

And this statement is diffeent than claiming a huge Jewish conspiracy that runs the entire planet?

I take back the tone of my point but not the thrust. I think you underestimate the spread of evangelist thought in this country. People aren't reading the Left Behind series in record numbers (check Amazon for that) just because they think it's a ripping good yarn.

I doubt that the Peace process will work. The hatred of the Jews and Israel is too widely distributed by the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia and others. It will take generations to clean up the mess.

It is almost eerie that everybody that has commented so far has agreed with PAD. I’m not saying you’re not entitled to your opinion, I’m just saying, where is the voice of debate? It’s not debate, or even discussion. This is a large group of people agreeing with each other. I find this frightening. Are you all agreeing with him because you actually feel this way, or are you agreeing because you’re fans? I am a fan, and I am not going to agree, because I respect him too much to hide my true opinion.

I find it an odd claim that Israel says it can’t survive while all these mean, evil Palestinians are attacking them. Especially since Israel has tanks, bombs, soldiers, and America backing them up. Palestine is so desperate they are throwing people, and relying on nothing but faith. And all of this over an area of land that you can cross, north-to-south, in a six-hour drive. I’m not saying either side is in the right, or is more vulnerable – it’s just something I wanted to bring up to bring a bigger perspective to this picture other than “omg, muslims hate teh jews, omg”.

And to bring a bit of history into the discussion – Israel wasn’t the original place the Jewish people came from. Remember your Bible lessons kids: They fled Egypt, where they were originally from, and King David conquered the area that is now Israel. And before that, Joshua conquered most of the tribes and city-states in the area of Canaan. Do not accuse anybody of stealing Israel, when it didn’t belong to them in the first place either.

Absolutely no nation that exists at the moment could have existed without the previous wars, invasions, and genocides that took place, and that includes Israel. Israel doesn’t get to pretend to be separate from that human fact. By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

Yes, you’ve been kicked out of your land. Yes, you were almost eliminated by genocide. But I don’t hear anybody giving Native Americans back the land that the Europeans stole, nor do I hear Native Americans saying that the entire world is anti-Native American. Where are the voices piping up to save that culture, when it’s in even greater risk of dying than the Jewish people are?

I also believe it is unfair to say that practically everybody is anti-Semite. In fact, I’m probably going to be accused of being anti-Semitic just for saying that, but what the hey … In all honesty, I’ve seen more prejudice towards the Muslim population as of late. There may be some true anti-Semitism out there, but you’ve got to realize that right now it’s more likely somebody would beat a Indian Sikh, confusing his turban with a Muslim one; or that some jerk would tear the hijab off some poor Muslim girl that was only trying to shop.

I don’t feel I can really say anything about religion, because I’m not thoroughly versed enough in the Quaran, The Bible, or the Kabala. So I'm just going to end this with - what I feel - is an appropriate quote from the first season of Red Dwarf.

Lister: "They're just using religion as an excuse to be incredibly crappy to each other."

A.I. Toaster: "So what else is new?"

Michileen: If we applied your logic to racism, for example, then no one but Mother Nature is to blame for racial prejudice, because after all if everyone had the same skin color, there wouldn't be anyone to be racist towards.

Not precisely. While 'faith' and belief in higher powers is as old as man, organized religion is a human construct, designed mainly to control the masses. To me, worshipping some abstract, all-powerful god (according to someone else's rulebook, no less) makes as much sense as worshipping the sun; I'm sure it was a great idea at the time, but seriously - we have to start moving on. Comparing this with subtle genetic adaptaions to different habitats is a mistake.

Robert Jung:

On the other hand, if I may be flippant about things for a moment, maybe the easier solution is to forcibly deport everyone from the area, fence it in, then let Disney turn it into a religiously-neutral theme park. You want to visit, you pay admission like everyone else, and troublemakers get bounced out by Goofy and Donald. Well-behaved visitors get to see the sights, go on a few rides, and max out their credit cards on souvenirs.

Oddly, it's not far from my dream solution to the problem, except yours creates a new one: what to do with, what: 8,000,000 people living there now?

Bilal:

This isn't going to get any better with fundamentalist Christians running the show in Washington; since the whole end-times scenario demands that Israel survive--not for the sake of the Jews, mind you, but for the sake of the Rapture.

I didn't know that. Is that true? The rapture needs an Israel?

Carl Henderson:

From what I've seen lately, opposition to anti-semitism and support of Israel seems to be growing on the US political right as it declines on the US political left.

Huh? Opposition to anti-semitism is declining in the American political left? Chomski an antisemite? Michael Moore calling for Jewicide? Israel deserves criticism from people concerned with humanitarian issues and gets it, but one should never confuse that with racial hatred.

James:

The reality is if the arab states around Israel truly agreed to let Israel exist as a nation, the fighting would end.

Probably. We'd have no problem dealing with the settlers and fanatics. Most of us truly want peace, wholeheartedly support (or at least accept the concept of) a palestinian state, wouldn't dream of electing warmongers if nobody wanted us dead, and as everybody has at least one realtive dead by war and politics, just want PEACE.

James: Whether one believes it is justified or not, the palestinians and some of the surrounding arab nations have just one goal: the eradication of Israel. The same is not true for Israel -- they do not wish to eradicate anyone.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. "Elements within the palestinians and some of the surrounding arab nations have just one goal: the eradication of Israel" would be more correct. I believe most of the people in the region just want to live in peace, but for various political interests are being manipulated into war, most of all the Palestinians. These poor bastards are everybody's pawns.

it is, however, true that no Israeli or Jew was ever about genocide (not even our closest thing to a Hitler: Meir Kahana), and any accusations along this line are ludicrous.

Mark L:

I doubt that the Peace process will work. The hatred of the Jews and Israel is too widely distributed by the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia and others. It will take generations to clean up the mess.

The British and French still dislike eachother, many Europeans are wary of Germans even though Germany is probably the most progressive (and least racist) country in Europe right now, etc., etc.

Nobody thinks Israelis and Arabs will be living in love and harmony, joyfully floating hand in hand towards a sparkling rainbow which will magically appear above a resurfaced Noah's ark; mutual acknowledgement and an implemented decision to stop the fighing between countries and dealing with the fanatical elements would be quite enough for now. Later, a financial collaboration Like Peres envisioned and even tried to implement would be nice, but that's LATER.

Every other day I seem to see attacks on Israel by Palestinians who claim they are retaliating for attacks on Palestine in which many innocents are killed as forces sek to blow up those they believe are wanted terrorists.

On every alternate day I see targetted attacks by Israelis on Palestine which sometimes kill the person they were after but also kill many innocents which is a retaliation for the murderous assault on innocents.

It seems to me that both sides behave in ways that just don't sit with the whole idea of righteousness.

My philosophy? You can have whatever faith you want, but violence begets violence and there are two options. Come to some agreement or kill until theres' no-one less to argue.

Right now, neither Israel or Palestine should be claiming any moral high ground about the way they are handling themselves. I have sympathies for both and less and less tolerance for either.

John

Guess I have first go at replying to Yugami:

It is almost eerie that everybody that has commented so far has agreed with PAD. I’m not saying you’re not entitled to your opinion, I’m just saying, where is the voice of debate? It’s not debate, or even discussion. This is a large group of people agreeing with each other. I find this frightening. Are you all agreeing with him because you actually feel this way, or are you agreeing because you’re fans? I am a fan, and I am not going to agree, because I respect him too much to hide my true opinion.

Considering the original topic of this thread is the Protocols, I would find it very surprising if anyone literate enough to operate a browser would question their stupidity.

I find it an odd claim that Israel says it can’t survive while all these mean, evil Palestinians are attacking them. Especially since Israel has tanks, bombs, soldiers, and America backing them up.

Well, let me use much restraint and put it this way: Technically, Israel could literally eliminate the "Palestinian problem" within up to a week if it were so inclined. But, believe it or not, 99% of us consider using our army to even one-tenth of its full capacity against the Palestinians OUT OF THE QUESTION, and most of us think we shouldn't be using it at all.

Palestine is so desperate they are throwing people, and relying on nothing but faith.

Well, nothing but faith, political and religious propaganda, financial backing from quite a few countries and extremism of various sorts; otherwise, you're completely right.

And all of this over an area of land that you can cross, north-to-south, in a six-hour drive. I’m not saying either side is in the right, or is more vulnerable – it’s just something I wanted to bring up to bring a bigger perspective to this picture other than “omg, muslims hate teh jews, omg”.

And the bigger perspective would be? You can cross the piece of land in question in any direction in about ONE hour. All of ISRAEL takes about 10 hours, Lebanon to Egypt; that it's such a miniscule area makes the problem bigger, not smaller. If we had a humongous country, believe me, there would have already been a Palestinian state long ago.

And to bring a bit of history into the discussion – Israel wasn’t the original place the Jewish people came from. Remember your Bible lessons kids: They fled Egypt, where they were originally from,

...and to which they went from Canaan...

and King David conquered the area that is now Israel.

Actually, what is now Israel was but a miniscule part of his empire.

And before that, Joshua conquered most of the tribes and city-states in the area of Canaan.

All of which, of course, happened in times so ancient it has no consequence over current affairs unless you're some kind of extreme religious fanatic. You know the Aztec, Roman and Ottoman empires, or the middle ages and the crusades? This was WAAAAAY before that. These days we're dealing with the repercussions of Zionism, the Holocaust and a couple of UN resolutions. Biblical times have nothing to do with it for most of us.

Do not accuse anybody of stealing Israel, when it didn’t belong to them in the first place either.

Huh? Well, in the abstract, nowhere belongs to anyone. Is that what you mean?

Absolutely no nation that exists at the moment could have existed without the previous wars, invasions, and genocides that took place, and that includes Israel.

Absolutely.

Israel doesn’t get to pretend to be separate from that human fact.

Absolutely, and it doesn't.

By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

Well, some of them settled in and around Jerusalem, some went beyond to other parts of the middle-east; that's why you could find Jews in Ethyopia, Morocco, Aphganistan, pretty much anywhere you'd care to mention.

Yes, you’ve been kicked out of your land.

I thought you said it wasn't 'ours' to begin with.

Yes, you were almost eliminated by genocide.

Yes, we have. What are you saying, 'get over it, this was almost 80 years ago'? And then bring the Old Testament as factual basis for historic perspective?! ARE YOU COMPLETELY DERRANGED?!?

But I don’t hear anybody giving Native Americans back the land that the Europeans stole, nor do I hear Native Americans saying that the entire world is anti-Native American.

That STILL nobody in any position of power in America does anything to even TRY and make amends for that horrible genocide is disgraceful. However, you will find that Anti-Semitism is more common than Anti-Native-Americanism; so much so, infact, that the latter does not even exist.

Where are the voices piping up to save that culture, when it’s in even greater risk of dying than the Jewish people are?

Few and far between. Check out Prof. Ward Churchill, and go on from there. And just because us pesky Jews failed to get eliminated back in the 30's, doesn't mean we have no right to pre-emptively protect ourselves now.

I also believe it is unfair to say that practically everybody is anti-Semite.

Absolutely; and nobody said that.

In fact, I’m probably going to be accused of being anti-Semitic just for saying that, but what the hey … In all honesty, I’ve seen more prejudice towards the Muslim population as of late.

While the thought initially did cross my mind, I think you're mostly uninformed. Infact - antisemitism INCLUDES muslims.

There may be some true anti-Semitism out there,

Oh, there is.

but you’ve got to realize that right now it’s more likely somebody would beat a Indian Sikh, confusing his turban with a Muslim one; or that some jerk would tear the hijab off some poor Muslim girl that was only trying to shop.

And it's shameful; but on the bright side, you seem to agree that racial hatred is WRONG.

I don’t feel I can really say anything about religion, because I’m not thoroughly versed enough in the Quaran, The Bible, or the Kabala. So I'm just going to end this with - what I feel - is an appropriate quote from the first season of Red Dwarf.

Lister: "They're just using religion as an excuse to be incredibly crappy to each other."

A.I. Toaster: "So what else is new?"

Red Dwarf is cool.

I don't think Noam Chomski is anti-Semitic or anti-Israel per se, but he is pretty pro-Palestinian. He has catalogued Israeli actions and acts of (his words) terrorism in several of his books. I don't think that he is against Jews in any way, he just wants a bit more understanding of the fact that Israel has just as big a part to play in the current insanity as anyone.

And rightly so! Chomski, of course, is about as Jewish as you can get; I made a funny.

In a nutshell, his (frighteningly well backed) premise is that the entire situation throughout the ME is easily traceable to multinational oil interests (meaning, frankly, US foreign policies); and that unless there's a major policy shift in the US regarding the way oil companies treat the area, there's no way whatsoever any solution will be achieved - no matter which regime has power in israel or Palestine.

By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

I'm going to assume you mean the non-Jewish tribes. Believe it our not they're probably the ancestors of the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. One of the misconceptions of about the great Arab expansion is the belief that Arabs displaced native populations in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact the Arabs simply conquered and imposed a new culture on the on these people. Much in the same way Turks from central Asia conquered the Anatolian populations and now we call them all Turks.

By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

I'm going to assume you mean the non-Jewish tribes. Believe it our not they're probably the ancestors of the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. One of the misconceptions of about the great Arab expansion is the belief that Arabs displaced native populations in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact the Arabs simply conquered and imposed a new culture on the on these people. Much in the same way Turks from central Asia conquered the Anatolian populations and now we call them all Turks.

By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

I'm going to assume you mean the non-Jewish tribes. Believe it our not they're probably the ancestors of the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese. One of the misconceptions of about the great Arab expansion is the belief that Arabs displaced native populations in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact the Arabs simply conquered and imposed a new culture on the on these people. Much in the same way Turks from central Asia conquered the Anatolian populations and now we call them all Turks.

To end all this?

Will the real god please stand up.

By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

Damn, I totally misunderstood the question. I though it was about the tribes that left Egypt.

I think they mostly stayed where they were, and lived under the empire, like you do (or did, back then). Far as I know, you were pretty much OK and free to worship whatever statue you wished as long as you payed tribute to the king and all that.

By the way, the tribes that existed in Canaan and Israel before, where did they go? Have you ever heard of them? Did they all convert, or did the then-Hebrew state stamp them out? (If anybody really knows the history of the area before Joshua settled there, I’d really like to know)

Interesting. Well, El, or Shaddai, or YHWH (I don't think it was YHWH... I'm fairly certain it was Shaddai... but not absolutely.) told the Hebrews to wipe them off the face of the earth. Now the Hebrews did not do this completely. They were fooled by certain tribes/city states into thinking they weren't the enemy. And that's where we have the Samaritans... as in the good Samaritans. Not totally. Actually, most of the tribes had rebelled against YHWH (and yes, at that time it was YHWH) and all were left was Judah and, I think, Benjamin. Not sure on that one, either. This is now the nation of Israel. Not the massive land mass it was in the good ole days.

All the lands that were the states/tribes of israel except for Judah and Benjamin were considered Samaria. Which they were mixed race.

I need to go back and read my old testament. This is what I remember from the last time I read it... oh 12 years or so.

Travis

I do want to put in a few words here.

1. My last name's Cohen. And I haven't been to synagogue in over 15 years, by my own choice.

2. When I lived in Florida, one of the roommates I had was from Morocco. And he had some personal stake in all of this, but hatred never entered into the picture. Frustration and fear, but never violence or anger.

3. I find that when religion is taken to an absolute, rigid stance, that is when problems crop in. Flexibility and compromise are the keys to making something, almost anything, work.

By the way, my brother "got religion" maybe a year or two ago. I don't know if he's happier with the way he currently lives and I do not judge him for his beliefs. But some of his actions in the name of religion have truly offended me, and I am sure he and his wife think less of me because I do not feel as they do. And that's sad.

Spoiler: Next time you're approached by a Jehovah's Witness, you can just tell them you're one of God's Chosen People. They may choose to offer you some literature. Then they leave.

No one has the right to tell someone what to believe.

\\And rightly so! Chomski, of course, is about as Jewish as you can get; I made a funny.

In a nutshell, his (frighteningly well backed) premise is that the entire situation throughout the ME is easily traceable to multinational oil interests (meaning, frankly, US foreign policies); and that unless there's a major policy shift in the US regarding the way oil companies treat the area, there's no way whatsoever any solution will be achieved - no matter which regime has power in israel or Palestine.\\

As Alan Dershowitz puts it, Chomsky is the quintessential self-hating Jew. His premise is just more wearmed over "Blame America First" crap. Who really cares what a supporter of the Khymer Rouge has to say?

[B]I think you underestimate the spread of evangelist thought in this country. [/B]

Actually, I don't. I'm a student at Pat Robertson's Regent University. I know full well the power they have and what they want in the future.

However, most Pre-Millennaliasts(those who believe in the Rapture and End Times) believe the Ed will come regardless of how man acts and Christians will neither bring it on or stop it.

Post-Millenialists (who believe the book of Revelations is primarly a story regarding the Jews persecution by Nero and their eventual redemption by God) do not believe there will be a Rapture or Tribulation--only the Second Coming. There is a good mix of Christians who vbelieve and are not apocalyptic.

Hsving experienced political circles, I can assure you very little Christianity is sctually practiced by the majority.

oh, and left Behind isn't revetting, but it is amusing reading on idle days. ;)

Sorry, guys n' gals. That's as good as the typing gets.

I find the general ignorance on the topic of Israel to be criminal. This recent article from US News may enlighten a few of you.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031103/usnews/3anti.htm

My name is Gunter, and I am PAD’s father. My credentials for participating in this debate are as follows: I was born in Berlin, Germany. When Hitler came to power in 1933, my parents and I fled to Paris, France. I was three years old. Two years later we migrated to what was then Palestine. I grew up in Tel Aviv. Since coming to America at age 18, I have been back to the area as a newsman and/or visitor at least a dozen times. I covered the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

1. When Palestine was partitioned by the United nations on November 30, 1947, it was along population lines. One exception was the port city of Chaifa (Haifa), where Jews and Arabs lived together, but the Jews were the majority. Another exception was the Negev desert, populated mostly by Beduins, nomads, and by Jews living in the historical town of Beer Sheva. Jerusalem was to be under international control, with freedom of access to the holy places of all three major religions.

2. The Jews lived primarily on land bought from Arab owners through the Jewish National Fund. Money for this purpose was raised by collecting nickels and dimes and their equivalents in Jewish communities around the world, in little white and blue tin boxes. Jews also settled on public lands obtained when Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. This was done with the permission of the government. When Jews began coming to Palestine in the end of the 19th century, they drained swamps of these lands and built communal settlements known as kibbutzim, collective farms.

Today the JNF concentrates on building forests. Peter may recall the time the family went to the town of Modiin in Israel when he was 13 years old. There, he and his younger brother, Wally, planted saplings funded by a donation from his parents.

3. When Israel was declared a state in May, 1948, it was invaded by the armies of five Arab countries. When the cease fire was declared a year later, Israel’s territory was much larger then had been allocated by the UN Partition.

4. There has never been a country called Palestine. The name is derived from the Hebrew word Plishtim, after the Philistines, people of Greek extraction who populated what later became known as the Gaza Strip. The land, first known as Canaan, eventually became the province of Palestine under the Ottoman empire.

5. After the 1949 cease-fire between Israel and the Arabs was declared, Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip. Emir Abdullah, the British instated ruler of Trans-Jordan, whose territory was on the eastern banks of the Jordan River, annexed what later became known as the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem, which included the Western (Wailing) Wall. Thus the Jews were denied access to their holiest place. Abdullah pronounced himself king of a new country, Jordan. Egypt and Jordan had nearly twenty years to help the Palestinian Arabs create their own state. They did not. Today, Palestinian Arabs comprise seventy -five percent of Jordan’s population. The current queen is of Palestinian extraction.

6. During the years the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule, thousands of Palestinians lived in refugee camps funded by the United Nations. No effort was made to help them live normal lives. No effort was made to build an industry and solid economy. While visiting one such camp in 1968 as an American newspaperman, I chatted with several unemployed Arab men. They were playing cards, smoking their narghillas and pledging to destroy Israel. We communicated through a translator and the men knew nothing of my background. This unemployed, dislocated population would give rise to a future generation of suicide bombers.

7. In 1967 Israel once more was attacked by its Arab neighbors. When the Six-Day War ended, Israel was in control of all of Palestine, as well as the Sinai Desert and portions of Syria. Jordan, in fact, became Trans-Jordan geographically, but never changed its name.

8. Yassir Arafat and the PLO set up headquarters in northern Jordan following the Six-Day War. Subsequently, King Hussein, who inherited his grandfather’s throne, attacked Arafat and his people in the dead of night. Arafat escaped to Beirut, Lebanon, from which he fled once more in 1982 from Israeli troops led by Ariel Sharon. He eventually settled in Tunis.

9.Yizchak Rabin, Israel’s prime minister, and Shimon Peres, his close adviser, brought Arafat back from Tunis in the early 1990s. They had proposed to create an autonomous area called Palestine that would have no military. Its government would engage only in civil matters. The area bordering on the river Jordan was to be under Israeli control. Arafat agreed. In 1993, the three men shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, Rabin has been assassinated by an Israeli extremist. Peres, who briefly succeeded him as prime minister, lost the subsequent election. Arafat lives in the ruins of Ramallah. And the Palestinians still have no state.

10. Calling Arabs anti-Semites is inaccurate, since the Arabs themselves are Semites.

11. The conflict between Arabs and Israelis is primarily over territory.

12. The Arabs came out of the Arab peninsula more then a thousand years ago. They are not the indigenous people of Palestine, just as the Jews were not the indigenous people of the land of Canaan. Like the Arabs, the Israelites came out of a desert more then a thousand years earlier, and defeated the Canaanites, Edomites, Moabites and others living in what these nomads considered their promised land.

13. Today, only Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel, proving, however, that peace between Arab and Jew is possible, provided the leadership is willing.

I spent some time looking at a map of the proposed partition of the Palestine Mandate a while back. If you make the assumption that the interesting places are connected by the roads and see who controlled the roads, you'll find that the partition was pretty even, save for Israel getting all of the Negev desert -- which wasn't exactly the most attractive real estate in the region.

Of course, as Mr. David observes above, that wasn't satisfactory to the surrounding Arab countries...

First off, to Gunther David . . . wow. You certainly know what you are talking about. It gives a perspective that will be greatly appreciated.

And secondly, for those curious about the connection between the state of Israel, evangelical Christians, and Armaggedon, Salon.com has a pretty good article on it (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/05/24/dispensational/index.html). It's a Premium article, but a free Day Pass will let you read it in its entirety.

- Sasha

The only solution is a Palestinian civil war.

www.honestreporting.com

'eliyahu ben 'avraham vaSarah':

I find the general ignorance on the topic of Israel to be criminal. This recent article from US News may enlighten a few of you.

That was a VERY good article, full of very relevant facts, I recommend you all read it. I might disagree with some of his opinions and conclusions, but one that is dead right is: the double-standard where Israel is concerned. That was the part I could never get. Right or wrong aside, I can't remember any other country (country!!!) ever getting this treatment from the 'international community' (heh) when reacting to terrorist attacks.

Also, that Amos OZ quote on the last page. I know who Oz is quite well, and generally dislike him and his work, but THAT is one good insight.

Gunther David (GAD?):

It's nice to see someone thinking they need credentials to participate in an online debate (Sort of reminds us all how the real world behaves, and threw me on a short meditative tangent that has nothing to do with this discussion). Yours are impressive. Mine are less so: being Israeli (Haifa) and with a decent level of general knowledge. I have to say I have a mental picture of you and have fallen desperately in love with it. I imagine spending an afternoon with you would be delightful.

4) Thank you for this; it's an often overlooked fact, imperative to any such debate. Addition: the first ever country to officially recognize Palestinians as a People was... Israel (during the Rabin/Arafat/Clinton talks).

9) The Palestinian entity was to have an armed police force, though; Rabin and Peres insisted that force be armed and trained by the state of Israel, as indeed it was. This drew major criticism from the middle-to-extreme rightwing section. I still remember some of the headlines, with people like Sharon and Geula Cohen screaming in bold italics: "They are giving them RIFLES!!!", and the Likud bumper stickres: "Don't give them rifles!!"

Another point: the Palestinian entity was funded on a regular basis by the US and Israel, according to whatever agreements the leaders made; this money was to be used to create infrastructure, housing, jobs, schools, etc.; instead, most of it (not even allegedly) went to personal Swiss bank accounts belonging to Arafat and his Junta.

13) That, I think, is the nail. What we really need is for the old generation of 'leaders' to go away. Their history prevents sound judgement and a change of perspective.

On the Palestinian side, Arafat doesn't have credibility with his people anymore. Their lives have been even more miserable since he took control. He will likely be assassinated the second he signs a real peace-agreement. His historic role is finished, and any agreements will have to be made with the REAL, truly elected (rather than appointed) leadership in Palestine, people who (for better or worse) speak for a majority of the people. And any such body will include the Jihad and Hamas. For better or worse.

On the Israeli side, there is no way any Palestinian leaders will ever trust Sharon, and there is no way the majority of the Israeli public will trust Peres; we need a younger generation to take control, people who haven't spent their lives blinded by ideals, people who can look at the situation pragmatically. Needless to say, this will have to be an overwhelming majority government, probably a Labour/Likud coalition. I don't know that any such people exist in realistic positions within the current political structure.

No one has the right to tell someone what to believe.

Hey, very clever. In telling us no one can tell us what to believe, you are, in fact, telling us what to believe. Seems like a self-refuting statement to me. For those into philosophy out there this refers to the law of non-contradiction.

As one who has previously complained of "experts" without credentials, i must thank Mr. David for establishing his. You caught our attention with an authoritative hook, and kept us there. That was the most worthwhile and informative post I've seen posted here. Thank you.

Eric, he did not tell you that no one can tell you what to believe, merely that no one has the right to do so.

As for the rest of this thread...I find myself coming round to the idea that I had over a year ago now, when Israel lobbed a missile into an apartment building and killed Salah Shehade, leader of Izzedine al Qassam, military wing of the militant Islamic group Hamas. Among those killed were Shehade's wife and three of his children and several other children. Do I mourn for Shehade? No, I do not. But his wife, and his children, and the neighbor children who were also killed...should I not mourn for them?

Shehade was a murderer. He killed hundreds. His hands were entirely stained with blood. I have a hard time imagining that his daughters were as well.

As long as each side is willing to kill a dozen innocents or more to get one person, or even to kill them with no other target than those innocents themselves (and this is what groups like Hamas do...they kill people for the horrible crime of being Israeli, or even just being in Israel, since you can't very well strap a bomb to a teenager's chest and send him into a bus to explode and know you'll only be killing Israelis, not that that would be any better) then this will never end. Each act will ramp up the hatred and determination on the other side. Israel will forever be forced to face the fact that her military power cannot crush an enemy that refuses to stand and fight (a lesson other nations may well learn in time) and groups like Hamas will forever be forced to resort to attacks that do no real damage to the Israeli infrastructure and merely increase the willingness to use those fighter jets, tanks and bombs.

I don't hate Israel, or Israelis. I don't hate Palestinians. But at times, I sincerely hate that I know anything about the Middle East at all. I'd honestly like to physically remove Israel from the region and put it on an island in the Pacific Ocean. Maybe that would be far enough, but somehow, I doubt it.

I don't know the answer. I don't know why we need TV shows parroting the hateful lies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I don't know why anyone would believe that millions of people are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy of global domination so incredibly inept that they faced genocide and pogroms repeatedly throughout their history. I don't know why people feel the need to go back six thousand years to try and figure out who should be in Israel now. (Hell, didn't Abraham come from Ur of the Chaldees, the fabled city linked to the Uruk of Gilgamesh? Maybe the whole Fertile Crescent should be Israel's! If we're going back that far, that is.) I don't understand any of this, on either side. I don't know why we can't just say 'What our ancestors did, we don't have to do...what we did in the past, we can avoid doing now' and move forward. I don't know.

As long as it is acceptable to hate someone based on what religion they might have or what group they might come from, or to kill groups of people to make a point, this will never end.

"People aren't reading the Left Behind series in record numbers (check Amazon for that) just because they think it's a ripping good yarn."

Actually, it has been proven that certain religious groups inflate sales of their books.

The Scientologists did it, why wouldn't the Christian Right?

I think the Left Behind series sales is inflated in much the way the sales of Dianetics was inflated.

And who knows, maybe Left Behind is a really good yarn for those inclined to believe such things are possible.

That doesn't mean they believe such things WILL happen.

It's like saying because I read Spider-Man I think radioactive spiders can give people 'spider powers'.

Might be repeating something someone else has said, but I've just discovered this dodge and wanted to tip folks off to it. Seems some Neo-Nazi types use the "Total Looney-Tune" image as camoflague. Ernest Zundel, for instance, published tons of info on Nazi flying saucers and the like that even he knew was bogus.

His purpose? This stuff got people's attention and got into bookstores since it was so obviously 'harmless.' Not only could he then funnel that money back into Holocaust Denial and such, but he was also able to introduce some of his nonsense to readers not perceptive enough to pick up on what he was up to.

So, Mister David, a request: If you ever do a story about Nazi UFOs, please put in a LOT of info about the Holocaust.

Oh, and the Evangelical Christian thing; If I understand correctly, in the End Times, all the Jews are supposed to spontaneously convert to Christianity. This is besides the rebuilding of The Temple of Israel (or something like that) being a sign of the coming bad stuff.

My solution to this is for every Jew to buddy up with a Christian. If they ever feel an overpowering urge to convert to Christianity, the Jews can call the Christians, who will simultaneously convert to Judaism. Then if the newly converted Jews feel compelled to convert back, the newly converted Christians can go back to Judaism. And they can trade off like that. Delay Armageddon forever. Drive God nuts.

Chomsky, a supporter of the Khmer Rouge? Try looking up what he really said.

In the book "What Uncle Sam Really Wants," Noam criticizes past US support for the Khmer Rouge (this is from an interview with Noam, the book is copyrighted 1986-1990):

"In order to bleed Vietnam, we've supported the Khmer Rouge indirectly through our allies, China and Thailand. The Cambodians have to pay with their blood so we can make sure there isn't any recovery in Vietnam. The Vietnamese have to be punished for having resisted US violence."

As you say, "Who really cares what a supporter of the Khymer (where did you get the "y"?) Rouge has to say?" And the US support amounted to boatloads of money and arms.

It is likely you read the stupid urban-legend-esque story that Noam supports the Khmer Rouge because he points out that the US exaggerated the number killed. I can certainly forgive you that. Lazy reporter after lazy reporter has repeated that lie almost to the extent of the exploding poodle in the microwave. But here is Noam again (Necessary Illusions Copyright © 1989 by Noam Chomsky, Appendix I Segment 7/15):

"Our goal, then, was to consider the relation between the evidence available and the picture presented by the media and journals of opinion; to determine the actual facts is a different task. The latter task, we emphasized, was well worth undertaking (it simply wasn't ours). Thus we took issue with the assertion of Jean Lacouture in the New York Review of Books that facts do not matter; we did not accept his contention that it is of no consequence whether killings under Pol Pot were in the thousands or millions (he had originally claimed that the Khmer Rouge boasted in 1976 of killing 2 million people, but in corrections a few weeks later stated that deaths might be only in the thousands, adding that the reduction of his estimate by perhaps a factor of 1,000 was of no significance). We pointed out that this position, while widely praised and respected in this case, would be rejected with scorn if applied by others to the U.S. or its clients and allies; imagine the reaction if some critic of Israel were to allege that Israel boasted of killing several million people during its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, then conceding that perhaps the number was in the thousands, but that the difference is of no consequence."

(I found it on http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm, the Noam Chomsky archive.)

Noam did not like the killings, and he did not ignore them. He points out that facts matter: if you report killings, get the numbers right.

As for Noam being a "self-hating Jew" and that "his premise is just more warmed over 'Blame America First' crap," this seems to be the view of people who don't like any criticism of the US or Israel. Al Franken puts it best in his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them:"

"They (conservatives) love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That is why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good."

I know that I love America. I also want Israel to survive and do the right thing (even when it is not easy). So when they do wrong, I am offended and want that behavior to stop. Sure, Hamas and the former Soviet Union (Noam called it "a dungeon") and a host of other groups have also committed much murder and terrorism, and that must be reported and it must be stopped and those murders make me, a liberal, REALLY MAD. But I am angriest when murders and terror are done with my nickel under my American name.

Which is worse, when somebody down the street commits crimes, or your father does it?

P.S. I don't want ANY Spam! No matter who sings it.

P.P.S. I could not get rid of some annoying underlining in this post; maybe GreyMatter is slipping somewhere. Sorry about that.

Hey, no annoying underlining! Yay! It only showed up when I previewed.

My previous post is a response to Jim Burdo's silly little post earlier. I should have made that more obvious in the origianl post.

Isarel should have never been allowed to become a country. someone decided that it would be ok for a group of Jews to take over a piese of land that they had no right to.

Isarel should have never been allowed to become a country. someone decided that it would be ok for a group of Jews to take over a piese of land that they had no right to.

Dude, you can't really believe that. As Mr. David pointed out Jews freely purchased a lot of territory with the express purpose of forming a nation. The UN partition was a flawed but at least good faith attempt to create both a homeland for the Jews and an Arab nation. Sadly the Arabs rejected the idea of partition, the Israelis accepted the idea of partition but not the suggested borders, so we get a war death and misery in the mid-east for 50 years.

Re:Evan Hanson's comment. The Jews DID accept the borders as drawn by the UN partition. As I pointed out, they even agreed to the internationalization of Jerusalem. If the Arab countries had accepted the partition, Palestine would have become a state at the same time as Israel.

And who knows, maybe Left Behind is a really good yarn for those inclined to believe such things are possible.

I haven't read the Left Behind books myself, but the general consensus I've gotten from folks who've read it -- including fundamentalist Christians -- is that it's barely-passable disaster fiction with a bunch of half-baked end-of-the-world prophecy mixed in. The later books get even more criticism for drawing out the already-overlong plot even further and bludgeoning readers over the head with the schemes of the Antichrist. It's certainly not high literature by any means.

Mr. David is correct. I was in error in my earlier post. Too many facts running around in a brain two sizes too small.

Just realized:

Does this mean that PAD is the Son of G-D?

I think that can only happen when the common folks on both sides -- not the politicians and the leaders -- are willing to sit together, put aside the things that both sides have done in the past, and truly work towards a solution that's fair to everyone.

The 'common folk'? Who are they? What makes them common? And won't that make them the leaders? Whomever is sitting at the table, regardless of who they were are now the new leaders. Regardless of how 'common' they were they once before they wouldn't be common anymore.

**"If you repeat a statement enough times, no matter how absurd that statement is, people will come to believe it is true."

By interesting coincidence, Michael Moore uses that very quote in regards to the Bush administration in his new book, "Dude, Where's My Country."**

I just find that ironic considering it was Micheal Moore who was using the phrase. Not to get too far off-track, but a digression is a digression.

This ignores one hugely important fact. Muslims have no "religious" need to have that land. Before Jews started returning to Palestine in the late nineteenth century the Arab world couldn;t have cared less about it. It was a forgotten backwater of Syria. They don't want the land so much as they don't want the Jews to have it.

From what I understand the Jews have no religious reason to be the sole inhabitants of Israel, which is probably why Arabs have the same voting rights as any other Israeli as long as they are citizens. Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Arabs have a fair vote. You don't need to be a Jew to be an Israeli.

Also from what I understand there's still a Islamic belief which goes something like 'death to the infidels' or some such. While not every Palestinian holds such a belief, clearly some dangerous Muslims do... it wasn't the harmless ones that became suicide bombers, exploding themselves in grocery stores and buses and such.

If the Israeli Jews are guilty of anything, and I won't say if they are or not, it's military/police overkill. They may be guilty of overkill regarding their defensive measures, but I would never say that definitively.

CJA

David Strom: Whoops. I totally missed Jim Burdo's post. Thanks for that link.

Jim Burdo, far be it from me to try and argue Chomsky's cases for him; HE is an internationally renouned political analyst and academic, I'm a visual artist with some general knowledge and an interest in current affairs (besides, Noam makes his cases brilliantly enough). If you feel like disproving him, I would STRONGLY suggest you find out what he says, first. It's much more interesting than what MEIR KAHANE'S DEFENCE LAWYER has to say about him, I guarantee you.

David Strom's link looks like an excellent place to start.

Chomsky's work is very well documented in who knows how many books and articles. You'll probably find some of those in your local library. I'll be assuming you won't want to buy any, for now.

Too lazy to read? No problem! Jello Biafra (and me) is here for you: Biafra's record company, Alternative Tentacles, releases

Chomsky lectures on CD on a regular basis. You can buy those at their online store in www.alternativetentacles.com.

However, if you don't want to spend money, there's an EXTENSIVE MP3 archive in their MP3 section, where many Noam pieces are featured alongside Biafra himself, Howard Zinn and many many others, including a lot of the best punk music ever made; it's legal, it's free, it'll expand your mind and give you a good idea on what those people actually have to say.

Yugami: It is almost eerie that everybody that has commented so far has agreed with PAD... I find this frightening. Are you all agreeing with him because you actually feel this way, or are you agreeing because you’re fans?

Well, um, this is sort of a 'fan' site, right? I mean, why would you be here unless you're a fan of PAD's works/opinions? I admit, it dovetails in a self-fulfilling way, but it sort of makes sense...

And while I'm thinking about it, why are all you conservative types hanging around here? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, really, I'm just wondering. I don't mean to call out the guys of a conservative bent who are fans of PAD, who actually enjoy discussing issues (as opposed to beating people over the head). I enjoy a good discussion myself, and I wouldn't want to infringe upon the pleasure anyone recieves from participating. But, honestly, some of you (not to name any names) seem to post just to be a Flaming Troll. Wouldn't you be more comfortable on the conservative blogs? What gives?

The OTHER John Byrne

In regard to the "Left Behind" angle... check out these links: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/07/29/left_behind/

http://www.uucmp.org/Forrest's%20Sermons/WillYouBeLeftBehind.htm

The first is an article from salon.com, which more or less sets the stage for the second link, an opinion piece (actually, a literal sermon) which winds down to a very prudent point: don't let other people do your thinking for you.

One more link to make you think, this one to another article about the rise of anti-Semitism: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/printer.php?storyID=13958#bio0

Many thanks to Mr. Gunter David for his insights. The Arab/Israeli conflict is so charged that solid information is hard to come by, and his summary is very much appreciated.

tOjb

It is worth pointing out that the Palestinians who "want to kill" Jews are killing fewer Jews than the Israelis who, ostensibly, don't "want to kill" the Palestinians. By about a 3-to-1 margin.

Is the hatred directed by the Palestinians against the Israelis more intense than vice-versa? Quite possibly. However, Israel poses a much greater threat to the welfare and existance of the Palestinian people than the Palestinians do to the welfare and existance of Israel, by simple virtue of Israel's economic and military power.

Part of the problem is that, for much of its short history, Israel WAS under a real threat, in the form of the various Arab nations, in tandem and individually. This threat has been reduced greatly, but the Israeli government continues to respond to Palestinian uprisings as if they were every bit as much a threat as the combined militaries of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc. Against the Arab nations, Israel was the underdog, but against the Palestinians, it is the dominant force.

I don't mean to minimize the horror and innate WRONGNESS of the criminal terrorist attacks perpotrated by some Palestinians, but the WORST year in recent memory, 2002, only saw 300-some Israelis die in such attacks. Out of a population of 6+ million. That's lower than the homicide rate in most major US cities.

4. There has never been a country called Palestine. The name is derived from the Hebrew word Plishtim, after the Philistines, people of Greek extraction who populated what later became known as the Gaza Strip. The land, first known as Canaan, eventually became the province of Palestine under the Ottoman empire.

That is a deceptive argument, because the very idea of nationalism is a very new one, and even moreso in the Middle East. Prior to WWI, there was no country calle Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabi or Iraq, either. Indeed, a little more than a century ago, there had never been countries called "Italy" or "Germany" either, but you could certainly find people whou would describe themselves as "Italian" or "German" (or their linguistic equivalents).

My point is that MOST of the world has spent MOST of history as subjects of some foreign empire or other. That doesn't invalidate the rights to sovriegnty of any people.

Egypt and Jordan had nearly twenty years to help the Palestinian Arabs create their own state.

I don't think there is any question that the Palestinians have gotten screwed from both sides in this mess. The Jordanains, for their part, did, at least, extend citizenship to all Palestinians, but the actions of the Arab nations have probably done more harm than good. That is one of the reasons that Jordan eventually dropped its claim of sovreignty over the West Bank in favor of a seperate Palestinian government.

Claims from either side based on history or semantic twisting are useless. From an historical standpoint, the present West Bank is more analogous to the historical home of the Jews than the territory within the Green Line, anyway. The right of Israel to exist is proven by the simple fact that there are 6 million people there who consider themselves Israelis. However, there are also 4 million people in the Occupied Territories (and another million or so abroad) who consider themselves Palestinians. It would be as wrong to expect them to pack up and leave as it would to expect the Israelis to.

From what I understand the Jews have no religious reason to be the sole inhabitants of Israel, which is probably why Arabs have the same voting rights as any other Israeli as long as they are citizens.

But the Musilm Arabs in the Occupied Territories have never even been OFFERED Israelis citizinship, because they would then comprise a full third of the electorate, endangering Israel's status as a Jewish state.

Also, Muslim citizens of Israel cannot enjoy the full benefits of citizenship unless they are willing to join a military engaged in military action against other Muslim Arabs, and cannot hold office unless they swear an oath to uphold Israel as a JEWISH state.

Israel is more of a democracy than most of the Middle East, but that isn't saying a whole lot.

Also from what I understand there's still a Islamic belief which goes something like 'death to the infidels' or some such.

There is nothing in the Qur'an to support such an idea, and it teaches tolerance for all "peoples of the book", meaning Jews and Christians. Jews and Christians lived in relative peace and acceptance for most periods in most of the Muslim world. Remember it was the MUSLIM Ottoman Empire that first allowed large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine. The first Arab resistance to Jewish settlement actually came from CHRISTIAN Arabs...

This ignores one hugely important fact. Muslims have no "religious" need to have that land.

Um, except for the fact that it is the site of the third holiest shrine in their entire religion, The Dome of the Rock, where they believe their Prophet ascended directly to Heaven, a place to which they directed their prayers for much of their history before switching to Mecca. No, other than that, they have no religious interest in it...

Before Jews started returning to Palestine in the late nineteenth century the Arab world couldn;t have cared less about it.

Except for the Arabs who were, y'know, LIVING there. And the Arabs who were fighting to throw off foreign rule and trying to unite all Arab lands into a single nation. Other than that, yeah, they couldn't have cared less...

**Just realized:

Does this mean that PAD is the Son of G-D?**

No, it just means that the PADguy is the son of a GADfly. :D

(ouch)

(we will now return you to our regularly scheduled blog topics)

Chris

jack Collins:

That is a deceptive argument, because the very idea of nationalism is a very new one, and even moreso in the Middle East. Prior to WWI, there was no country calle Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabi or Iraq, either. Indeed, a little more than a century ago, there had never been countries called "Italy" or "Germany" either, but you could certainly find people whou would describe themselves as "Italian" or "German" (or their linguistic equivalents).

I think you're missing the point of the argument: a response to the often voiced opinion that 'Jews conquered the country of Palestine'.

To answer Mr. Collins' argument, I'd like to point out that the country I live in was called Canaan in the beginning, and was later called Israel during the time of Moses, and certainly after Saul, David and Solomon became kings of Israel. The name "palestine" was a name given to Israel by the Roman empire for political purposes following the Bar-Kochva revolution. As for the Arabs, I would like to point out in all due fairness that if there's any country to which they do have a national claim, it is Saudi Arabia. While as for us, our national right is in this country.

If it be important to anyone, let me post the quote of the great Martin Luther King again over here:

“And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other

nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism. The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!”

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.

It would be strongly recommended of everyone to bear this part in mind, and also to remember, that Jack Kirby and Stan Lee are also both Jewish and as far as I know, they were both sympathetic to Israel.

As to Noam Chomsky, he is not a reliable source. Certain old timers in Philadelphia claim that he plagiarized much of his linguistic theories from Zellig Harris of the University of Pennsylvania. If you wanna see how crooked Chomsky is, check up the different and contradictory versions of his own political background. Make sure to look at the interview with him published in Youth and Nation, a Zionist periodical, in the late 1960's.

To answer Mr. Collins' argument, I'd like to point out that the country I live in was called Canaan in the beginning, and was later called Israel during the time of Moses, and certainly after Saul, David and Solomon became kings of Israel.

I actually put togeter a set of historical maps of Jewish habitation and political influence in the region between the Jordan and the Mediterranian (to avoid any politically-colored terms).

Jewish political domination in the region totalled a little over 700 years, with only 2 100-year periods of any unified kingdom, and two divided kingdoms surviving an additional 200 and 330 years, respectively.

However, Jews did not make up a majority is all of the lands they controlled politically, especially as Saul, David and Solomon unified the various tribes and extended political influence beyond the Jordan into the territory of the Aramites, Edomites and Moabites. As I said, the historical region of primary Jewish habitation wasroughly the same as the modern West Bank, with its only access to the mediterranian a small stip near modern Haifa, and a finger reaching into Galilee. Jews have NO historical claim, for instance, to Gaza, which was always Philistine or Nabatean (Arab), except for 30 years at the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. Likewise for the Negeb, which was always predominantly Edomite/Idumean or Arab.

My point is that the region of medern Israel has been ruled and INHABITED by numerous peoples and cultures over the years, and that, except for a few hundred years, the Jews were not a major one, so it is futile to argue for a state of Israel (which I support) on those grounds.

The name "palestine" was a name given to Israel by the Roman empire for political purposes following the Bar-Kochva revolution.

Not exactly. "Palestina" was the Latin transliteration of the Greek name for the Philistines, the people who ruled the modern Gaza Strip and most of the coast of modern Israel. The use of the term "Philistine Syria" (//Syria Palestina//) for the entire region south of the Galilee dates to the Ptolemeic/Selucid period. The Romans did rename their province of Judea after Bar Kokhba, but were only following the lead of the Greeks.

As for the Arabs, I would like to point out in all due fairness that if there's any country to which they do have a national claim, it is Saudi Arabia.

Why? Where does one set the cut-off point for a "national claim". If you go back far enough, we're ALL from West Africa, but that would get awfully crowded.

It is also important to realize that "Arab" does not just mean "from the Arabian Penninsula" but also "speaking Arabic". As Arab influence spread, so did their language and culture, and rather than totally displacing the indigenous populations, they intermarried and imposed their ways. This is especially true in North Africa, where there are "Arabs" of decidedly non-Semitic stock, but this also took place throughout the Semitic world, meaning the Arabs living in between the Jordan and the Mediterranian, including the Arab JEWS, had ancestors there before the Arab conquests of the 6th century.

Moreover, Nabatean Arabs were a major politcial, economic force, and a major part of the population, in the regions comprising southern and coastal Israel today from the 4th century BCE. Moreso, for the most part, than the Jews.

Listen, entire history of Jews in the region, from the Exodus to the Diaspora, was about 1300 years, almost the same length of time between the Arab invasions until today. Neither side can make a stronger claim based on history alone.

I think you're missing the point of the argument: a response to the often voiced opinion that 'Jews conquered the country of Palestine'.

The context I've always encountered for that argument is one saying: "Since ther was never a Palestine, the Palestinians aren't a real people and should just go live in any other Arab country". This argument is grounded in the false assumption that national identity is a pre-determined factor, rather than a product of political and social circumstance.

I think it is very dangerous to equate Anti-Zionism, or even opposition to present Israelit policy, with Anti-Semitism, because that tells the opponents of Zionism that ALL Jews are a fair target.

Please understand, I am not remotely an Anti-Semite, nor am I anti-Israel. I have devoted my academic life to the study of the history and religion of the Jewish people. One might call me Anti-Zionist, in that I think the formation of the State of Israel came about in a very negative fashion, but the blame for that is shared by the Zionists, the Arab nations, and especially the European powers.

But that does not mean I don't support Israel's right to exist, any more than would deny the US's right to exist based on the even more unfortunate circumstances under which it came to be. But the right to exist does not mean the right to deprive other peoples of their basic human rights, and the right to self-defense does not mean the right to disproportionate response or "pre-emtive retaliation".

Jack Collins:The context I've always encountered for that argument is one saying: "Since ther was never a Palestine, the Palestinians aren't a real people and should just go live in any other Arab country". This argument is grounded in the false assumption that national identity is a pre-determined factor, rather than a product of political and social circumstance.

I don't think Mr. David was suggesting Palestinians aren't a people, or that they don't have a right to a country; I know for a fact I am not.

In response to some of the critical comments regarding "religion" and it's evil practices:

In the Bible (and I can only speak as a Christian), particularly the New Testament- where Christianity began- you will NEVER see any suggestion of hatred against the Children of Israel. There is, in fact, great concern and a deep yearning for the Jewish people, most notably the book of Hebrews, which was clearly written with a scholarly understanding of the Hebrew faith. Nowhere does it say that if someone doesn't convert they must be killed. If you see a religious denomination doing that- they are wrong! No matter how much they try to tell you the Bible sanctions that. The "Church" should not be starting (or have started) "Holy Wars." Christ said to turn the other cheek. He also commented on how He could have had angels intervene on His behalf to save Him- He chose not to. While I do accept Jesus as a standard (and saviour- yeah I know that offends some people) I refuse to associate with a church (small c) that would commit these attrocities.

That said, I believe Israel has a right to defend itself against... well, the rest of the world, much of whom has sworn to destroy it. The covenant made with Abraham said "I will bless him that blesses you, and curse him that curses you." It's hard for me to team up against God.

Regarding the old posting wondering which X-Files episode posited the "end times" scenario: that was in the Bible. Not too far from the prophesy about Israel actually becoming a nation again. Check it out, man. The Bible makes for some far out reading sometimes- even if you stick with the Old Testament.

Jack Collins says he's spent his academic career studying Jewish history, etc. I suggest he read a few more books and articles and get away from pro-Arab propaganda, such as the slick Judeophobia of the New York Times [a really terrible newspaper, which I say on the basis of reading papers in Italian, French, Hebrew, and Spanish]. But let's stay with the positive. On the history of the Western name "Palestine," its usage, and the various other names for the Land of Israel [Matthew 2:20-21], check out the article at www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html

Also see books on the historical geography of Israel by Michael Avi-Yonah, on history by Michael Grant, Mary Sherwood, and Aryeh Kasher, on Arab collaboration in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple see Tacitus, The Histories, V:1, plus the various books put out in English by the Ben Zvi Institute in Jerusalem.

Avi Green was right about the name "Palestine." The official Roman name for the Land of Israel, including the Golan Heights and Galilee, was Judea [IUDAEA], until emperor Hadrian changed it to "Palestine" after crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt. For Greek usage, check M. Stern's Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. If you read French, check Felix Abel's erudite books. On the modern period, check out Samuel Katz' books: Days of Fire, Battleground, and Jabo. Katz exposes British perfidy very well. So does William Ziff's The Rape of Palestine. Ziff by the way later became a comics publisher. So many of the books published on Arab-Israeli affairs are either pro-Arab propaganda by Arabs or are meant to cover up the two-faced or triple-faced role of the British, the CIA, etc. On the CIA role see Andrew Tully, Miles Copeland, etc. Also see books by Frank Gervasi, M.S. Arnoni, Kenneth Bilby, Pierre van Paassen, Albert Londres [in French], Robert St. John, Uri Dan and Dennis Eisenberg.

umm, just for your information, anti-semitism does not refer only to hatred of jews, but refers to hatred of arabs too. you see, semitism is rooted in a form of language that is from the time of abraham, and since abraham was the father of two races: arabs, and jews, anti-semitism refers to both races. Just in case you wanted to know.

It's all a moot point. Be they Arab or jew come the new world order they will all be dead. If they free Palestine then we will enslave Palestinians. You can't win.

The only problem in the world today is that people are greedy egotistical animals who can't come to terms with the fact that there are recources enough for hundreds of times the present population. We sell out to the occulted ones who know the meaning of life the universe and everything for a little pink house with a white picket fence. The power brokers have sold us piston engines and gasoline for over eighty years because they had too much gasoline left over after refining oil. As for religeon, YOU CAN'T HANDLE RELIGEON! I've studied many religeons for years now, I'm fastenated by them and there are many truths within them. Unfortunately social behavior forces me to believe that "religeon is the opiate of the masses". As for Jews they did'nt kill Jesus the romans did and it was a good thing for cristians because it fulfilled prophesy that is supposed to save mankind. Also you can't kill Christ, besides he was called Yeshua Ben-David and at the age of thirty became a Rabbi. All Christians are Jews!

DAMN YOU FOOLS! you never learn, I see there are many non-christian and atheist people so it's ok that your intelligence is low (of course, the most intelligent people have always been catholic christians) but you do not understand that jewish are crap. They worship fake prophets, their god is wrong! Jesus told them but those idiots didn't believe. Christianity will spread and turn everybody the followers of the only god but do we really need to suffer this low-intelligent non-christian BULLSHIT!

Well, the comment above is more than slightly disgruntling.

Personally, I blame human nature. It seems to be largely in our nature that we are selfish, ignorant, intolerant and gullible. I admit that I wouldn't have the same spiritual beliefs and opinions I have today is I had lived a long time ago, so although the world of today is very distressing in many ways, I am glad that I live in a society (Canada :) where I can state my opinion without being shot or called a heretic.

I don't hate religion, I just can't stand the abuse of it. Claiming to own land because it is written in a book has never worked out very well (as seen with the crusades.) I personally have chosen to have no religion, because although faith can be a wonderful and up-lifting thing, I've seen far to many evils done in the name of religion and god.

I'm also starting to think that lasting peace between humans is never going to happen, since we always find someone to blame (often the Jews as seen throughout history) or someone to pick a fight with. We are never satisfied with what we have, and ignorance as well as intolerance is almost more present than hunger and poverty.

~The first victim of war is truth~

There would have never been a 9-11-2001 attack if USA remained even handed when it came to the middle east. the east is the east problem and not that of the USA. The reason now that USA is involved is because of Jewish American who have replaced the ideology of real jews. Isreal no longer has a voice for itself. Only Russian and USA jews speak for Isreal. Just this morning a caller called in to 90.1 on the east coast here in D.C. and stated that most media has all jewish owneership which tries to slant the media to the jewish american agenda but its not working. Just because USA citizen do not support the conflict be it the arab or jewish sides does not mean we are antisemetic. The Idea that USA go back to being even handed would cause more world peace.
The people in AIPAC and PNAC should all be disbannded and sent to jail no matter who they are(RUMSFELD)

Way to dig up an old thread, dumb ass! Firstly, the US government IS even-handed in the aid it gives to Israel (that's how it's spelled, btw) and the Arabs. Fact. Second, Who owns the biggest media conglomerate in the world? Rupert Murdoch, right? That name doesn't sound particularly Jewish to me.

Understand religion first and then talk about it...do some research because now u think "ahh what the hell are these people doing...why are they so into religion blah blah blah..etc" but after you read a book....and theres only one book, one religion, one god....your thoughts will change and so will your life, we suffer this life...life after death is going to be a little different.