The Rape of Gaza

How would you feel if you found out that an American school, paid for with your tax dollars, was bombed and completely destroyed by a US ally? This happened in Gaza just a few months ago, during Israel's now-infamous Operation Cast Lead.

I've been touring Gaza for the past three days as part of a Code Pink delegation, and the concrete rubble and twisted rebar of the American International School in Gaza is just one of the many horrifying images we've seen on this trip. The school, which taught American progressive values to Palestinian kids in grades K-12, was bombed by US-supplied Israeli F-16s in early January. The Israelis claimed, without supplying evidence, that Hamas fighters had fired rockets from the school. Now several hundred kids have not only lost the school they dearly loved; they have been given a very different lesson in American values, one no doubt unintended by the school's founders and teachers.

The people of Gaza suffered immensely from the Israeli assault, which not only killed some 1,400 and injured 5,000 but destroyed or heavily damaged mosques, schools, hospitals, universities, and industrial and other business establishments, in addition to thousands of private homes. Dr. Marwan Sultan, who practices at Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahiya, told me his hospital was so damaged they had to send all patients to al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City--which was itself damaged. The bombing of one school in Beit Lahiya killed about forty kids and injured a hundred, Sultan told me. He saw scenes of death and mutilation that still give him nightmares. Thousands are living in tent cities all over the Strip, and the entire population of Gaza is being strangled to this day by a blockade that is choking off any possibility of reconstruction or recovery.

Make no mistake about it: the blockade, directly enforced by Israel and Egypt but conspired in by their superpower patron in Washington, is a continuing act of war against an entire civilian population of 1.5 million, a form of collective punishment and a crime against humanity. John Ging, director of operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which officially invited Code Pink to come to Gaza, told our delegation that billions in aid had been promised in the wake of Israel's massacre, but so far nothing had arrived. Our delegation, he said, is the first concrete action of solidarity with an oppressed, long-suffering population. Four months after a devastating conflict, he added, the siege continues. "The first thing we need to see is the opening up of crossing points and an end to collective punishment because of the political failures and security problems created by a few." It's a matter of life and death, he said, "and we're running out of time…. The people of Gaza are asking for help, justice and the rule of law."

Code Pink--whose organizers, I might add, have done a fabulous job in arranging this tour--is urging Obama to break the siege himself by visiting Gaza on his Middle East tour. That's not likely to happen, of course, but the least he could do is demand an end to the blockade. He's more likely to do so if Americans put on the pressure. Readers: it's your turn.

Comments (131)

1. Correct reporting ... except for one word, "ally."

   Israel is not now nor has Israel ever been a US ally. No alliance treaty exists between Israel & the US.

   Not a fact that AIPAC broadcasts, neither the MSM ... but in '67, after the 6 Day War & the Israeli seizure of Palestinian lands, LBJ offered Israel an alliance treaty. Israel refused, because all alliance treaties have, inter al, 2 requirements: that all signatory nations state clearly & precisely where their national borders lay; and that any signatory initiating military actions against a non-signatory must inform in advance all the other signatories to the alliance treaty.

   Israel has always refused to accept these 2 standard requirements of any alliance.

   Posted by sloper at 06/02/2009 @ 06:43am

2. Posted by sloper at 06/02/2009 @ 06:43am

   Probably true, slope, but I get a little dubiious of your "Israeli history"--

   "Israel sunk a US Navy ship with all US sailors on board killed."-----Posted by SLOPER 03/24/2008 @ 09:32am |

   OBAMA, CHRIS WALLACE... AND RUPERT MURDOCH...Posted by John Nichols at 03/22/2008 @ 5:37pm

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 07:44am

3. I am sick and tired of garbage like the article written by Roane Carey.

   Is there any comprehension by the author that the Hamas murderers who want no Israel are to blame for what is claimed in the article to be "opression"?

   The enablers of this, which include the Arab world and "progressives" who lay the blame on the wrong side in this Middle East conflict, including Mr. Peanut (Jimmy Carter) are the ones to blame for this.

   "Code Pink" is in no way qualified to make an objective assessment of the situation.

   I note that in the article above it is claimed that the school taught "American Progressive values"......maybe that is one of the problems here... the school should have just been teaching American values, not "American Progressive values"

   Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 07:47am

4. '... they were civilians of a sort, but innocent? Give me a break. ... If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting the participation upon the little Eichmann's ...I'd be interested in hearing about it.' -- Ward Churchill

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/02/2009 @ 08:21am

5. Now come on, Honestliberal, the people in Gaza don't deserve the consequences of war any more than German civilians in WWII deserved the devastation of their country just because it was run by Eichmann, Himmler, Mengele, Goering and other National Socialists. And they don't deserve to be split into Gaza and the West Bank any more than Germany deserved to be divided into Federal Germany and Communist Germany after the war. And they don't deserve to lose territory to Israel any more than Germany deserved to lose territory to Poland and Russia. Do they?

   Posted by Mistral at 06/02/2009 @ 08:30am

6. Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/02/2009 @ 08:21am

   Hey, HL...check out some of the comments from the RIGHT about George Tiller.

   (oh, that's right...you don't quote YOUR side!)

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 08:37am

7. Here, HL....I'll help you out-

   "This guy does belong in a distiguished class of doctors that appear historically and medically his peers, Dr.s Carl Clauberg, Oberheusen, Karl Brandt, Johann Cremmer,and Josef Mengele."----Posted by BigPasture at 06/01/2009 @ 2:41pm

   George Tiller's Assassination posted by Peter Rothberg on 06/01/2009 @ 07:55am

   "Mengele"?..."Eichmann"?

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 08:44am

8. sjchermak, Code Pink is leading a delegation of 60 people from 10 nations to see first-hand what our US taxpayer dollars have wrought in Gaza. I'd bet even an Israel-firster such as yourself would be stunned and ashamed if you had the balls Roane has to actually fly around the world and witness the destruction brought about by the IDF with US-taxpayer funded white phosphorus weapons, limb-shearing DIME bombs, and depleted uranium shells. The reason the US-Israel "alliance" is unraveling is because no one is falling for the MSM hasbara any longer. Israel must go it alone if it insists on dehumanizing the Palestinians in the name of a land grab for a "Greater Israel."

   Posted by Obamaniac at 06/02/2009 @ 08:53am

9. "How would you feel if you found out that an American school, paid for with your tax dollars, was bombed and completely destroyed by a US ally?"

   Or - how would you feel if you found out that US taxpayer subsidy via loan guarantees to Israel subsidizes construction of Israeli settlements in occupied territories, in direct violation of terms and limits placed on such "economic" assistance. "Outraged"?

   Posted by OneVote at 06/02/2009 @ 09:14am

10. Obamaniac,

    Israel had no quarrel with a Palestinian State in 1948.

    Israel did not occupy any territories until after the 1967 war, after continual aggression had been waged against Israel.

    Israel has been under siege ever since... any efforts at peace have been rebuffed by the Arab world and the Palestinians, who want NO ISRAEL. This is more important to them than the actual existence of a Palestinian state.

    Other than Anwar Sadat making peace with Israel, the Arab world and the Palestinians have never made any meaningful concession at all in this conflict.

    It is demanded that Israel must get out of the territories.....then what? What I see reference to over and over again is that THEN the negotiations would begin...negotiations for what?... things like the "right of return", etc.... in other words more of Israel would then become part of something else other than Israel... with the goal being no Israel.

    It is obvious that the Arab world with few exceptions has always been opposed to Israel and has not move one micro-millimeter off of that goal. Most of the world, including the U.N., seems sympathetic with that goal also.

    Israel got out of Gaza. Did the Arab world and the Palestinians try to establish some kind of de-facto functioning country there, providing for the welfare of it's people, as a pre-cursor to an actual Palestinian state? The answer is NO....they used the area as a launching pad to wage agression against Israel instead.

    Israel would not be "grabbing land" if it's existence had been accepted by it's neighbors long ago....The opposite has happened....It is WRONG to label Israel as the blame for this.....it is the sympathizers and enablers of Arab hate that are to blame, which seems to include too much of the American political left.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 09:50am

11. Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 09:50am

    So just a basic question, SJCHER.

    Do you support ANY Palestinian state?

    And how will that work if there are Israeli settlers in those territories?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 09:55am

12. Talk about marxist spin-Marxist because of Code Pink which is led by the marxist Castro Supporter, Medea Benjamin.

    Now some truth against the lies

    <Officials: Hamas seizes UN food aid in Gaza JERUSALEM –

    Armed Hamas police broke into a Gaza warehouse packed with UN humanitarian supplies and seized thousands of blankets and food packages, officials said Wednesday.

    In New York, U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said UNRWA "condemned in the strongest terms" the confiscation of its aid supplies. The UN demanded the items be returned, but they remained with Hamas late Wednesday.

    Hamas policemen stormed an aid warehouse in Gaza City Tuesday evening and confiscated 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels ready for distribution to 500 families, said United Nations Relief and Works Agency spokesman Christopher Gunness.

    "They were armed. They seized this. They took it by force," Gunness said, terming the incident "absolutely unacceptable."

    The seizure took place after UNRWA staff earlier refused to hand over the aid supplies to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs, he said. Similar aid packages were distributed to 70,000 residents over the past two weeks, Gunness said.

    Ahmad Kurd, the Hamas official in charge of the ministry, did not deny the aid was seized, charging the U.N. was giving the aid to local groups with ties to Hamas opponents.

    "UNRWA did not do what it said it would do, and began distributing its aid to groups that tie their activities to political activism," Kurd said, an apparent reference to Fatah, the main opponents of Hamas. In 2007, Hamas overran Gaza, expelling Fatah forces.>

    http://tinyurl.com/m8uarb

    They stole the aid so that Fatah supporters could not receive aid

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:04am

13. <John Ging, director of operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which officially invited Code Pink to come to Gaza, told our delegation that billions in aid had been promised in the wake of Israel's massacre, but so far nothing had arrived>

    Mr Ging is a liar

    April 7, 2009

    <Gaza – Ma'an – For the first time in a week Israeli authorities opened all three of Gaza's regular commercial, aid and fuel import crossings for operation Tuesday, said Chair of the Gazan Committee for Entry of Goods Raed Fattuh.

    All three crossings were last open on 30 March, when 160 truckloads of goods and an unknown amount of fuel were sent into the Strip. The crossings will be totally closed from Wednesday to Saturday for the Passover holidays in Israel.

    The Kerem Shalom crossing will see 115 truckloads enter, including 45 for the UN and international organizations, 56 trucks for the private sector will ship dairy products, frozen meat, flour, grains, sugar, rice, spaghetti, cooking oil, diapers, toilet tissues and blankets and 13 other trucks will transfer in fruits, garlic and agriculture nylon material to the agricultural-private sector.>

    http://tinyurl.com/n34osq

    <Gaza, April 4, 2009 (Pal Telegraph) - Director of operations in Gaza for the UN Refugee and Works Agency on Saturday demanded Israel to ease its restrictions on the entry of Goods into the Gaza Strip. Mr. Ging pointed out that what Israel allowed entry into the Gaza Strip is not enough to meet basic needs of the one and a half million inhabitants, who are bearing harsh hardships.He also said that he understands the security challenges Israel faces, but it has to open the crossings in times of calmness.>

    http://tinyurl.com/lr43h4

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:32am

14. And I guess Ms Carey, that the Palestinian press was mistaken about this?

    May 23, 2009

    <Gaza – Ma'an – A convoy of medical aid arrived in Gaza on Saturday, delivered by the Organization of Islamic Conference in support of the Palestinians.

    A'wni Al-A'klouk, head of the public service hospital in Gaza, said, "The hospital received this delivery which contained eight truckloads of medication, equipment and other aid to be distributed among all hospitals and non-governmental health centers in Gaza according to the need of each."

    Manal Siyam, head of the hospital's projects department, expressed gratitude for the efforts made by the Islamic Conference "and the role it is playing in supporting the Palestinians," affirming that the hospital will continue with efforts and contacts with international organizations and donor parties to continue delivering aid.>

    http://tinyurl.com/nmb7tg

    Also May 23, 2009

    <Meanwhile, Israel opened the Kerem Shalom crossing on Thursday for 116 trucks loaded with goods and aid, and on Friday 46 trucks crossed through.>

    http://tinyurl.com/m5ppo7

    So it appears Ms Carey, that you are either a liar also, or unable to adequately determine the truth and instead accept the word of those who wish to manipulate the truth for their own purposes.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:40am

15. Mask,

    I do not object to a Palestinian state side by side in peace with Israel.

    I remind you, once again, Israel did not object to that in 1948.

    As far as Israeli settlers in the territories, you are putting the cart before the horse here.

    Before any discussion of Israel giving up the territories would even begin (i.e., Israel returning to the pre-1967 borders) they would have to have the absolute guarantee that by doing so they would not be signing a death sentence upon themselves, that they would not simply be giving up strategic land for supposed guarantees of peace that never take place.

    To even discuss the situation in the territories before the Arab world, the Palestinians, Jimmy Carter, Code Pink, that U.N. rapportuer referred to a few months ago, and others who are anti-Israel come to terms with how wrong they have been and do an 180 degree attitude change..... would be totally unreasonable to demand of Israel.

    Remember, Israel did leave Gaza, and evicted it's own people against their will to do so.... and look where it got them.

    So don't even bother bringing up settlers in the territories before fixing the Arab, U.N. and world, U.S. political liberal, etc. mindset on this issue to the point where these various groups really agree to the existence of the state of Israel and do not just say it and not mean it.

    And don't forget, the influence of Iran in this......an Iran that advocates the destruction of Israel.

    And yes, Mask, I know that the words of the human scum that is the president of Iran in Farsi supposedly did not call for the destruction of Israel, just "regime change"....... except what in God's name to people who make that statement think regime change really means to the animal running Iran?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 11:09am

16. Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 11:09am

    Don't bloviate, SJ...you're not on AM radio. Just answer the questions.

    Now...how do you define an "absolute guarantee that by doing so they would not be signing a death sentence upon themselves".

    And remember you've already said you don't trust ANYBODY who disagrees with you due to their "mindset".

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:26am

17. posted by ROANE CAREY on 06/02/2009 @ 05:19am

    It's just shocking to me, how comfortably complicit the US national government has been in Israeli crimes, for so long. The core of the problem is the combined weight of the Zionist lobby and the arms industry lobby in Washington DC. I believe that, until the death grip that these two interests have on the highest levels of the government is broken, the horror and evil will continue in the occupied territories.

    Keep spreading the truth about Gaza - mass media in the US, largely, hides this truth (see: "New York Times" and "Ethan Bronner" for fine examples of outright Israeli propaganda in American media).

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 12:03pm

18. Gaza remains the only territory solely ruled by Palestinians, free of Israeli settlers and land claims, and its independence is what it is being punished for......

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 06/02/2009 @ 12:03pm

19. Mask,

    Knock off the B.S. I am not bloviating, I did answer the question.

    You question had to do with how could there be a Palestinian state if there are settlers there?

    Obviously, at some point agreements would be made and there would be no settlers there, just Palestinians.

    But, you and I both know there is no way of determining when the "some point" would be.....the way that things stand now.....with the objective of the Palestinians and the Arab world being no Israel.

    That has to change before any progress can be made.

    It is wrong to even suggest Israel should concede anything before the BIG concession by the Arab world (agreeing to the existence of Israel) is made.

    How to change it? I have said over and over again, I do not know. How can you change people who are wrong and who are to blame?(the Arabs, Palestinians, libs in this country, syfriendly, etc).

    Do you actually have a constructive solution rather than playing devil's advocate? I would like to hear it.

    And I do admit that you have taken on syfriendly and Crip Think on this subject so I do admit you are not a one sided anti-Israel partisan on this matter. You are just being Mask, the devil's advocate and pest.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 12:20pm

20. Just a survey. What will be the status of the Middle East at the end of this century?

    1. Peace, at 1948 borders.

    2. Peace, at 2009 borders, Gaza, West Bank forming a Muslim state.

    3. Peace, Israel, Gaza and the West Bank united in a single non-religious state; all free to worship at their various holy places.

    4. Israel at 1967 borders, continuing terrorist attacks.

    5. Israel at 2009 borders, continuing terrorist attacks.

    6. Israel occupying Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon.

    7. Israel, Gaza and West Bank united as Palestine; no Jews remaining, Jewish holy places razed.

    8. Devastation, after war with weapons of mass destruction.

    9. Peace, after border realignment; Israel giving up territories with Muslim populations in exchange for West Bank territories inhabited by Jews.

    10. Israel, Gaza and West Bank united in a state of Israel; no Muslims remaining in the area, Muslim holy places razed.

    11. Administration of the area after conquest by Syria, similar to the administration of Lebanon.

    12. Peace, at 1967 borders, Jews and Muslims allowed access to holy places on either side of the border.

    13. Peace, at 1967 borders, Jews and Muslims forbidden to cross the border; holy places razed in each region.

    14. Peace, at 2009 borders, Gaza and West Bank separate states.

    15. Occupation by UN armed forces, continuing terrorist attacks.

    16. Territory administered by the UN, peaceful coexistence.

    17. Anarchy, similar to the civil wars in Lebanon.

    18. Israel, Gaza and the West Bank united in a single state, religion fading, interest in holy places from historians and archaeologists only.

    19. A desert resulting from population pressure and water mismanagement.

    20. Israel at 1948 borders, continuing terrorist attacks.

    Posted by Mistral at 06/02/2009 @ 12:32pm

21. Charlie -you can't consider Gaza independent of anything when it has been made 100% dependent on humanitarian aid (since it cannot import or export much of anything, and even fishing boats have to stay docked whenever the IDF is having a bad day). So, occasionally, the ruling authorities (elected authorities) are tempted to break into a warehouse and get the goods -- and usually distribute them to the population. Otherwise they wouldn't get such high scores on intent to vote. (that's about another post higher in the chain) Sjchermak-here's a constructive solution: Israel pulls back behind internationally recognized borders; gives up on control of Palestinian imports from any point. Israel ceases to try and control how Palestinians go about in THEIR land -- ie Gazans can go to Hebron and vis-versa, on the basic principle that it's not any of the Jewish State's business to determine whether Mohamed can visit his aunty or not. As peace partner to president Abu Mazen or his successor, Israel is not allowed to enter Palestinian land to kill people it sees fit to kill. Israel forever gives up the right to control Palestinian trade, imports, exports, taxes. It may however lock its borders to Palestinian immigrants and visitors. THAT is its business, but none of the rest. Essentially allow a Palestinian state. Now if there is an attack from one side to the other, international rule of law should apply -starting with financial compensation. that lets the moderates gain ascent in Palestine. Good fences make good neighbors. Maybe 20 years from now, the Jihadists who call for the end of Israel won't be so loud, and the Zionists who still call for "purification" of the land will also shut up. Visit Hebron and meet some people before jumping on your keyboard. Boker tov.

    Posted by Elrig at 06/02/2009 @ 12:37pm

22. Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 12:20pm |

    Odd, SJ....you are so full of info, data, opinions, analysis on "what the problem is"...why "what Israel is doing is right"....why "the Left is wrong about THEIR solutions"....

    but plead "I don't know" when asked for alternatives?!?????!

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 12:43pm

23. Mask,

    Israelis have a tie to the region going back to biblical times. It is their ancestral homeland.

    At some point in history that region got sparsely populated.

    Somewhere in the late 1800's or early 1900's Jews and some Palestinians began to resettle the land. Jewish settlers turned areas that had not been fertile into fertile areas for agriculture and sustainment of a population.

    In 1948, the UN proposed a two state solution, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. Israel had no quarrel with that. The Arab world said no, and the answer is no to this day.

    When you look at the amount of land occupied by the original Israel, it is small beyond belief. At one point it is only 9 miles wide. It is difficult to understand why Jewish people should not have that small tiny land as a homeland.

    Arabs, Palestinians, Jimmy Carter, seem to think that if some Palestinians occupied that land, despite the fact that their tie to that land did not go back that far, then that land can not be Israel, despite the fact that they were to have their own state.

    They were not willing to talk and compromise and reach an acceptable agreement. Apparently the goal is no Israel, they feel that land is totally theirs.

    All that Israel has wound up doing (occupied territories, security fence, containment of Palestinians) over the years have been defensive measures.

    Any criticism of Israel is inappropriate given the one sided unwillingness of the "other side" to concede anything at all.

    That is why Israel is right.

    The Left is wrong because any "solution" proposed by the left always seems critical of Israel and places demands for concessions on Israel. Just read what is said in the article above.

    I don't know the solution - I know the left's answers are wrong.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 1:10pm

24. Mistral,

    Your survey is flawed... you infer Israel commits terrorist attacks.

    Terror attacks are when Israeli citizens are blown to pieces just because they wanted to go to Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem for lunch.

    Terror attacks are when an aircraft comes crashing to the ground in Somerset County, Pennsylvania (east of Pittsburgh).

    You see the result of terror attacks when you walk out of J&R Computer World, across the street, through St. Paul's Chapel, out the other side, and see that there is nothing across the street.

    You do not know what a terrorist attack is if you infer Israel commits terrorist attacks.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 1:16pm

25. Mistral,

    The answer to your survey is 12.

    Why?

    1. At some point Bibi will give the order and there will be no more threat of Iranian nukes.

    2. By the turn of the century, which is 91 years away, we will have had other Presidents besides the lib Barack Obama, and some of those Presidents will be able to recoginze who is right and who is wrong in the Middle East.

    3. By the time of 91 years from now enough of the world will come to the realization that the U.N. is totally useless and an actual impediment to world peace, and will stop supporting and belonging to the U.N., and the U.N. will go out of existence, enhancing the possiblity of world peace.

    4. There will be more democracies in Arab countries in the Middle East besides Iraq, and those countries will not engage in hatred of the Jewish people. Credit goes to George W. Bush for starting the trend towards democracy in the Middle East, and in believing it is possible.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 1:22pm

26. Just to clarify, the "continuing terrorist attacks" does not specify who commits the acts, just that the previous terrorist attacks continue and there is no peace. Note that possibility 15 obviously doesn't indicate that the terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the UN armed forces, just that there is no peace, in contrast to possibility 16.

    Here are some a new possibilities:

    21. Peace, at 1973 borders. 22. Peace, at 4 BCE borders.

    Posted by Mistral at 06/02/2009 @ 1:39pm

27. Posted by Mistral at 06/02/2009 @ 12:32pm

    I don't foresee any of your options.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 1:41pm

28. Mistral,

    I apologize for accusing you of inferring Israel was committing the terrorist attacks.

    It is just that I get used to seeing so much anti-Israel comment on The Nation I perceived it in some of your options when it was not apparently there.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 1:47pm

29. No probleme. It's hard to get all the details into a single post, so a lot of it was sentence fragments.

    23. Occupation by Egyptian army.

    Posted by Mistral at 06/02/2009 @ 1:53pm

30. Eschew verbage, SJCHER....ALL you needed to post was-

    "That is why Israel is right. I don't know the solution - I know the left's answers are wrong."----Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 1:10pm

    The rest was filler....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 2:19pm

31. Mask,

    But it wasn't filler, Mask, it was the explanation of why Israel is right.... heheh.

    And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if the left constantly blames Israel, or insists on Israel conceding this or conceding that which will only empower it's enemies, then the left is wrong.

    I guess maybe rocket scientists would understand that but apparently some U.S. Naval Academy graduates, or at least one, with interest in/training on nuclear power for submarines DO NOT understand this.*

    * in case you are wondering I am talking about Jimmy Carter.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 2:33pm

32. Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 2:33pm

    So, YOU don't have any problem with the RIGHT constantly agreeing with any policy of Israel.

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 3:58pm

33. Mask,

    You are being classic Mask now, boring in on some aspect that is marginally related to the issue at hand.

    It appears that a good portion of the Left in this country is more anti-Israel and too sympathetic to the Palestinian side, and a good portion of the Right is more pro-Israel.

    Why this is on an issue that occurs outside this country I do not understand.

    Why the left is so sympathetic towards people who are racist anti-Semites and will not tolerate a small tiny Jewish state in their midst is something I can not explain.

    I just know that it is what it is. I also know that I am pro-Israel because I am pro-Israel, not because I am a Conservative. As I have mentioned before on this site, until the 1990's I used to be a reliable Democrat voter, but was always pro-Israel.

    With regard to your question, for which you will demand an answer and fixate on it if you do not get one, you ask me if I don't have a problem with the Right constantly agreeing with any policy of Israel. Since I am pro-Israel and I am Conservative, gee, obviously I do not.

    As I explained before, to find fault with anything Israel does is not appropriate until some balance is put towards this by the world, and that does not exist now. What exists now is the "other side" is never blamed for anything, never held accountable for any promises made, excuses are constantly made for actions (killing and murdering) by the "other side", and Israel is blamed for just about everything, by too many in the world.

    But, undoubtably, this is another Mask trick question, because there must be something Israel did at some point (or some Israeli did at some point) that many including most Israelis would agree is wrong, that you are holding in reserve to whip out and try and trap me with.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2009 @ 4:13pm

34. I wonder if anyone on this post has ever had their home invaded? If not then imagine that your home is invaded everyday of your life for 30 years, and then tell me exactly how you would respond?

    "Anyone who examines Israel's policies and methods of ethnic cleansing of Palestine, however, will quickly realize that "security" is an over-exploited ruse used to legitimize its colonial policies and to shield itself as a nation from moral responsibility for its actions."

    For those interested in learning the truth try visiting: http://www.wrmea.com/

    Posted by Spiritgirl2 at 06/02/2009 @ 4:54pm

35. Responsibility for the so-called "rape of Gaza" rests fully on the society the Palestinians have created for themselves, by themselves.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/02/2009 @ 5:39pm

36. sloper, your history on Israel and US relations is a little foggy. "The USS Liberty was attacked off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, while gathering electronic intelligence. The attack killed 34 Americans and injured another 171." This was deemed to be an act of neglignece by Israel. Regardless, Israel is an ally of the US both in spirit and in fact.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/02/2009 @ 5:47pm

37. Posted by pyeatte at 06/02/2009 @ 5:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You are a fairly monstrous person.

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 6:29pm

38. I wonder if Israel's demented "supporters" on this page understand that anyone who encounters them is more likely than ever to develop a poor opinion of Israel.

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 6:29pm

39. sjchermak,

    Sorry to say, you are terribly misinformed.

    1. There is no threat of Iranian nukes becasue there are no Iranian nukes. Even the Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that Isrel believes Iran might be able to make one bomb by the end of the year IF it decides to enrich it's LEU stocks to HEU.

    Bibi is cynically using the Iranian nuke canard to stonewall.

    2. The only way to determine who is right and who is wrong in the Middle East is by assessing who abides by international law.

    Israel does not and never has.

    3. It's ironic that Israel holds the U.N. in such contempt, even though the UN helped create Isrel to begin with. Without the UN, we wil have international vigilantism.

    4. Democracy or no democrcy, the resentement towards Isrel is due to Israel's murderous foreign policies. This resentment's will remain so long as Israel remains a terrorist state.

    After all, Israel was founded on terrorism by terrorists, and subsequently elected 2 terrorist leaders to the office of Prime Minister. In 2006, Israel then celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel.

    Who ever said that terrorism doesn't pay?

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 10:02pm

40. sjchermak,

    I will be glad to explain the things you cannot explain.

    A good portion of the Left a pro human rights and opposed to war and empire. Israel is a massive human rights violator and perpetrator of war crimes. It became a Jewish state by ethnically cleansing 800,00 Palestinians from their homes and has been stealing land ever since. The reason a good portion of the Right is more pro-Israel is that the right tend to be Islamophic and racist and also held hostage by the Christian dispensationalists who think that Christ's return will be hastened by the creation of greater Israel.

    22 Arab States have signed a pece treaty offering to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders, which Israel has rejected. Even Hams has voiced support for a 2 state solution. It's clearly false to imply that the Palestinians or Arab states will not tolerate the existence of Israel.

    You are likely pro-Israel because you are a Zionist and an Islamophobe. Or perhaps you were simply raise to believe that Israel can do no wrong.

    The argument that balance is required to address this issue is false. Facts and truth so not require balance. Balance is a propaganda tool invented y the likes of Fox news to put spread false into the public.

    The reason Israel is blamed is because Israel holds all the cards. It controls all the territories as well as air, land a sea access to all. It decides whether to steal land or return it. It decides whether to massacre civilians or not.

    I hope this resolves your confusion.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 10:13pm

41. sjchermak,

    We've already demonstrated that it is a lie to insist that the objective of the Palestinians and the Arab world is the removal of Israel. 22 Arab States have signed a peace treaty offering to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders, which Israel has rejected. Even Hams has voiced support for a 2 state solution.

    Israel has no right tot he occupied territories. so it has not rights to make demands. A car thief doesn't get to negotiate the return of a stolen vehicle.

    If you want to know who is wrong, simply consider the 90 plus UN Resolutions against it, which is continues to ignore. If you want to know who is wrong, consider the ruling by the International Court of Justice that has found against Israel on numerous counts.

    If Israel was a democracy, it woudl be a state founded on laws, beginning with international law.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 10:19pm

42. sjchermak,

    The creation of Israel involved taking land away from the population that existed there. Would the US agree to give 50% of it's territory to Mexico?

    Israel did drive out 800,000 Arabs from their land in 1948. Israel launched the 1967 war uprovoked.

    Israel has not been under siege since 1948. Israel has thwarted every plan for peace ever since.

    22 Arab States have signed a peace treaty offering to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders, which Israel has rejected. It even included the offer to normalize relations with Israel. Even Hams has voiced support for a 2 state solution.

    Israel rejected this offer.

    Once Israel observes international law and countless UN Resolutions and gets out of the territories, there will be 2 states. That's what.

    The right of return can be negotiated by paying compensation to the families who's land was stolen in 1948 and ever since.

    Israel got out of Gaza because even hard liners like Sharon could not justify the cost of maintaining 800 settlers. All 8000 BTW were moved to the West Bank ILLEGALLY!! Of course, Israel never released it's grip from Gaza for a single day.

    So as you can see, there was no possibility of a Palestinian state being created. In November of 2008, Israel and the US voted against a UN Resolution calling for the Palestinians to be granted self determination. Even If Israel has allowed self determination, there is still the West Bank to consider before a Palestinians State can be considered.

    Israel has been "grabbing land"because the settler movement believes Gd gave them that land. After all, if grabbing land is the only means of ensuring security, then surely Israel ill have to expand into Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon right?

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 10:32pm

43. Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 10:32pm

    congratulations! Your series of posts show you to be the most manipulated and ignorant poster on the ME in recent months.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:53pm

44. antisocialist,

    "congratulations! Your series of posts show you to be the most manipulated and ignorant poster on the ME in recent months."

    Translation: You just whooped our Zionist asses and I am in a tail spin in search of a response. I must get back to the mother ship ASAP and update my talking points.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 11:02pm

45. Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 11:02pm

    No, it's just that you didn't have a single point that was factually correct.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:09pm

46. Again, so you seem to be under the delusion that chest pounding suffices for debate.

    Facts are not fair and balanced. You'll figure that out one day.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 11:14pm

47. FYI antisocialist.

    The blockade of Gaza remains in place.

    "Israel's Netanyahu holds firm on Gaza blockade" "We are being asked to ease the living conditions of the population and allow goods and equipment in, but we have other priorities in the Gaza Strip," a senior official quoted Netanyahu as telling a cabinet meeting.

    A blockade is an act of war. The last time Israel was blockaded it attacked Egypt.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/02/2009 @ 11:19pm

48. "THAT is its business, but none of the rest. Essentially allow a Palestinian state"

    Posted by Elrig at 06/02/2009 @ 12:37pm

    But that is the issue.There are two national aspirations at work, and fundamentally neither can be "allowed". They gain legitimacy by being won. For Palestinians nationhood is not dependent on the approval of Israel, or dependent on the acceptance of "Israel's right to exist". Hamas has legitimacy because it represents Palestinian resistance to occupation and demands Palestinians accept their right to govern themselves is conditional.

    This is what makes Gaza different. It represents a Palestinian territory governed on its own claim of equal national right. This is what lead secular Palestinians to vote for Hamas. This is what Palestinians were isolated and punished for insisting on, and why Gaza continues to be treated as is.

    Charlie M

    Posted by cmsandia at 06/02/2009 @ 11:47pm

49. Well put Charlie,

    Even in November of 2008, the US and Israel voted against a UN Resolution to grant the Palestinians self determination.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 12:00am

50. For anyone who believes that Israel set Gaza free in 2005, the one and only comprehensive scholarly history of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, provides a healthy dose of reality.

    This has been recently translated into English. It's called "Lords of the Land", by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar .

    It reads:

    "After Israel withdrew it's forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel's military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it's inhabitants, by means of it's formidable military might."

    That does not even mention the fact that Israel fired 7,770 shells into Gaza over the 12 months after it's withdrawl.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 12:09am

51. sjchermak,

    Please stop your fecal AIPAC propaganda, the jig is up and the entire world knows it.

    My mother is Jewish, that does not give me or anyone else the right to go and occupy someones country, if that were the case I guess my father can claim someones home in Asia because he is a Buddhist.

    Posted by Solomon_Kane at 06/03/2009 @ 12:33am

52. sjchermak,

    http://tinyurl.com/dxdpxe (Columbia University lecture)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jpFyyW0Mbc

    Educate yourself.

    Posted by Solomon_Kane at 06/03/2009 @ 01:17am

53. Shingo,

    The Palestinians destroyed much of the infrastructure in Gaza after Israel left. This is one of the things that shows it is a lie that they want a functioning state and want to provide for their people.

    In 1948 there was obviously no willingness on the part of the Arab world to negotiate a settlement that was agreeable to all, regarding a two-state solution. The Arabs wanted no Israel. They seek to deny the Jewish people having a country on a piece of land which as I have said is small in area. Even though this is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people they are told over and over again by people like you they have no right to have a country there, they can only live there if they want to live under Arab governance.

    The refugees only left Israel because they were encouraged to do so by other Arabs, not because they were driven out. You of course failed to mention Jewish refugees that had to flee the areas that were not going to be Israel. And the only reason there was a refugee situation is because the Arab world was not willing to come to a peaceful resolution on this, because they do not want a peaceful resolution, they want no Israel.

    After creating Israel in 1948, ever since any action by the U.N. (in the form of resolutions) have been with blatant anti-Israel bias. They are worthless and objectionable, yet you cite Israel as "wrong" by being in "violation" of garbage and nonsensefrom the U.N.

    You say once Israel leaves the territories there will be two states. Once Israel leaves the territories the demand for "right of return" will begin, and the jihad and intifada will then go to the next stage with more attacks on Israel.

    You expressed the hope you resolved my confusion. What am I confused about?

    I am not confused, you, however, are wrong.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 02:38am

54. sjchermak,

    So many false assertions, so little time.

    Firstly, the only reason Hamas exist is because Israel supported and financed them to serve as a cat's paw against the PLO.

    Secondly, it was Israel who broke the ceasefire n November 4th. Before then, Hamas were observing the ceasefire very carefully according to the Israeli government MFA report.

    Not only that, but Hamas maintained the ceasefire, even though Israel violated it from day 1 (by refusing to lift the blockade as was agreed).

    One does not need to be "qualified" to make an objective assessment of the situation. That is typical Israeli speak for defecting criticism and inconvenient facts.

    You suggested that the school should have taught American values, not "American Progressive values". Maybe it should have simply been a school of the Americas? That would have demonstrated right wing values in no uncertain terms.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 02:40am

55. Sjchermak,

    Part 1 of 2

    Your suggestion that the Palestinians destroyed much of the infrastructure in Gaza is clearly debunked by the findings of Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar. The only report of this is from Israeli sources.

    Of course, in order to prove that Zertal and Eldar are lying, you would have to explain why 2 Israeli scholars would want to include a false report into a peer reviewed thesis, and how this slipped past the peer review process.

    The Palestinian population, owned over 50% of the land in Palestine, had no incentive to give away half of the territory. Jews only owned 7% of the land in 1948. Would the US or any other state give up half it's territory to accommodate immigrants?

    It's only natural that they would not want anyone to take their land, whether it was Israel or otherwise. They had no say in the creation of Israel and they had been promised independence by Great Britain a decade earlier. Israel is NOT the ancestral home of Jewish people anymore than it is the ancestral home of the Palestinians. Most of the Jews who migrated to Israel had no a ancestral connection to Israel, but were convert to the religion. As Israel Bartal, Dean of humanities at the Hebrew University , says "Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions." Bartal added: "no historian of the Jewish national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the Jews are ethnically and biologically 'pure.' "

    The refugees were driven from their land by Zionists who had planned the ethnic cleansing of Palestine half a century earlier.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 03:10am

56. Part 2 of 2

    There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the Arabs were encouraged to leave. The massacre at Deir Yassin was just one of many hundreds of villages that were destroyed. This has been thoroughly documented by Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Illan Pape and former Israeli foreign minster, Shlomo Ben Ami. After all, without the ethnic cleansing, Israel would never have become a Jewish majority would it? The Jewish refugees were a recrimination of Israel's crimes.

    There is no question that Israel HAS stolen land and occupies it illegally. There's no point blaming the UN for the fact that Israel is acting illegally.

    The "right of return" would never have existed if Israel had not committed ethnic cleansing in 1948. Thats the contradiction that Zionist like yourself find yourselves in. You pretend like nothing happened in 1948, even though it went perfectly to plan, yet you now argue that the Arabs cannot possibly be allowed to return because the Jewish majority that was never on the cards would be threatened. You are just fishing for reasons not to abide by intentional law and the countless UN Resolutions against Israel.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 03:11am

57. FYI Sjchermak,

    In 1905, one of the most ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, who stated as early as 1905, said this about Palestine:

    " ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)

    Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Israeli political Right, in 1926 who explained that:

    " ... the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here between two truths .... but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)

    Last but not least, Ben Gurion himself said he saw no moral dillema with the transfer of Arabs from Palestine.

    Game, Set and Match.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 03:16am

58. Shingo,

    Game, Set and Match for me.

    You are making my case for me- you are laying out all kinds of BS trying to say that Israel should not exist to begin with.

    So this BS about wanting a side by side Israeli and Palestinian state is just that, BS. The real desire is no Israel.

    Those who say if Israel just leaves the territories and returns to pre-1967 borders and stops the supposed "oppression" of Palestinians, then all will be OK and there will be peace.

    But there will not be peace, because the objective is no Israel and then the next phase (more jihad and intifada) begins.

    You say that the area that is now Israel is not the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.

    That comment of yours is so stupifyingly wrong beyond belief.

    You can not make a credible case that there is no way that the tiny piece of land that was pre-1967 Israel could not be allowed to be Israel.

    Continually by you and others there is commentary that land was "stolen" from the Palestinians.

    What really happened is that the Arab world and the Palestinians were not interested whatsoever in sitting down and coming up with an agreement that would have been acceptable to both sides that would have allowed for an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. If the original proposed areas were not quite acceptable to them, they made no effort to try and work out an agreement that was acceptable.

    Just the continual assertion, that there were Palestinians in the area, thus there can not be any Israel. This despite the fact that this Palestinian connection only went back to the early 1900's. They were not wedded to specific pieces of land before that, yet now are fixated that it was their home and they were driven from it.

    to be continued

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 05:38am

59. Shingo,

    So you make the concept that Palestinians were living in certain areas, and thus that is hard wired homeland for all time, apparently, even though they had only been there a short time, and if that is their hard wired homeland (ignoring of course that it was Jewish homeland also, with ties that went a lot further back), then they can never leave.

    If they can never leave, then anywhere there is a Palestinian, there can be no Israel, by your logic and other anti-Israel proponents.

    Which is the real goal. And for some who do not have it as a goal anymore, they carp and whine about it and make excuses for Palestinian murderers and homicide bombers and terrorists.

    Apparently, by your logic, when the two state solution was proposed in 1948, once the Jewish people saw there was opposition to the idea of Israel, they were supposed to just give up and drop the idea.

    Fortunately, they did not do that.

    It is totally unreasonable to assert that land was stolen from Palestinians, and to deny the Jewish people a tiny portion of territory and be unwilling to make any agreement, concession or accomodation towards allowing Israel.

    It is unreasonable to make claims that a tiny portion of the area is Palestian land that can not be "stolen" when those Palestinians living there do not have lengthy ties to specific pieces of land, and when there was the possibility of a Palestinian state in the region anyway.

    The reality is, I do not believe that much of the Arab world really gives a flying crap if there is a Palestinian state or not, nor do they give a flying crap about Palestinians or their "homeland" ties.

    They just want that land to not be Israel.

    That is the reality you deny, as you support racist anti-Semite homicide bombers and jihadists.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 05:47am

60. Part 1 of 2

    The Palestinians owned the land.

    What's more, they weren't there for at least as long as any Jews native to the land were. Please don't litter this thread with your arcane assertion that the Arabs came after the Jews were there, because as Israeli scholars will tell you, that is fantsy. Judaism is only 3 thousand years old, yet villages like Jericho date back 5 millenia. Not only did Jews comprise a tiny minority, but most of the Jews that did live in Israel prior to 1948 weren't even Zionists.

    The reality is that Israel exists, so the question becomes what is Israel's goal? That much is obvious by looking at maps of Palestine between 1948 and today. Israel has grown like a cancer and the Palestinian land has been eroded away by the Zionist juggernaut.

    Don't waste our time with hyperbole over Palestinian murderers and homicide bombers and terrorists. Israel founded on terroism, by terrorist, and went on to elect 2 terrorist leaders to lead the country. Israel has massacred ten times a many Palestinians, most of whom are women and children (their favourite target).

    It is perfectly logical to ssert that land was stolen from Palestinians. In 1948, Jews only owned 7% of the land and Arabs 50%. Arabs were determined not to sell their land, so the only option for those wanting a Jewish majority was to drive the Palestinians out and claim that absentee landlords had no rights to reclaim their property.

    In any democracy, the length of one's ties is immaterial. All that matters is who owns the title to the land. Being a right winger, you should had some regard for property rights. Apparently not when it comes to Mulism. Of cousrse, you have no way of proving how long the ties were to specific pieces of land.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 06:23am

61. Part 2 of 2

    What Arab world wants has been made perfectly clear. 22 arabs states have not only offfered to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders, but to normalize relations with Israel. Israel has refused the offer, proving conclusively that Israel has always valued expansion and land theft over peace. In any case, this is about Palestinians who want a home and have no desire to be absorbed into the Arab world.

    if you want to talk Jihand, Israel stands a monument to the success of terrorism.

    It was founded on terrorimm by terrorists who were later rewarded by by election to the highest office in the land.

    Israel even celebrated the 60th anniversary of a terrorist attack in it's name in 2006. Name one other country that has done so. It's leader is the only poloitical leader, apart from Bin Laden, that described the 911 attacks as a "good thing". That says it all doesn't it?

    The game's over pal. The world is sick to death of Israel and it's derranged ideology. Your lies are falling on deaf ears.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 06:25am

62. BTW sjchermak ,

    The notion that the land of Israel was the obvious choice for the Jewish state is undermined by the simple fact that African and outback Australia were considered as possible sited to accomodate the Jewish state.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 06:29am

63. I often wonder what the world would be like if the jews had chosen a hunk of land that WASN'T already inhabited by other people. It doesn't matter if the arabs left on their own or were driven out, the fact and the SIN is that they weren't allowed back !! There is no debate about that being WRONG . I've never even understood the reasons for the jews needing a country of their own...for what? Trying to fulfil biblical prophecy? Protection? That big ugly wall is because they know that their actions cause reactions and it's a way of saying that they can do as they choose to others, but those others will be prevented from seeking revenge. Maybe if Mohammud had told his people that israel belonged to the jews forever, given to them by Allah himself, I'm sure getting them to leave would've been much easier than it was.What if the chinese showed up on the shores of the USA claiming that budda gave them new york and new jersey a long time ago, and they've chosen now to stake their claim ?

    Posted by proudgoy at 06/03/2009 @ 08:28am

64. BTW Shingo,

    Look at the map, the original Israel in 1948 vs. the Israel today - the only reason, and you know this, that it grew is because Israel was under constant attack, began to occupy territories as a defensive measure, and is not now, nor should Israel, give any of that up as long as it's neighbors want Israel gone.

    It is not because Israel in itself by itself has the goal of taking any more of the land than that which it orignally had.

    No doubt you can and will cite some people (Israelis) who may have desired over permanent possession of more than the orignal Israel in 1948. In case you haven't noticed, Israel is a free country with free speech and just like any other place with free speech many people have opinions and express them.

    But for the vast majority of Israelis and the various Israeli governments, that is not the goal and you know it.

    About title to land, that is fantastic, but obviously Arabs were not willing to give up (even with compensation or other exchange) any land to accomodate a tiny portion of that region being Israel. This was and is hard boiled anti-Semitic racism and also extreme arrogance, the demand there be no Israel, only beacause many of the Arabs hate Jews. There was no possiblitity of any reasonable accomodation of any kind that would have been fair to all, because the Arabs were not willing to do any of that. What they want is no Israel, they arrogantly want possession of all of the land, they want to deny the Jewish people a tiny portion for a Jewish state.

    Your BS about Australia being a possible location for the Jewish state is absurd, and only serves to showcase where you are coming from regarding all this.

    I have seen on this site where people like you have suggested Canada, eh?

    Your arguments failed.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 08:33am

65. 24. A recrudescent Ottoman Empire bringing peace and tolerance to the Middle East from Cairo in the west to Armenia in the east, from Istanbul in the north to Mecca and Medina in the south.

    Posted by Mistral at 06/03/2009 @ 08:36am

66. Israel is a rogue state. It has sucked us dry, and we continue to fund it, even though our august leadership is considering taxing our medical insurance benefits to pay for their bailouts and expensive offshore bombing efforts.

    It's time to cut Israel off. No more US funds should go to Israel. Madoff transferred 100 Billion to Tel Aviv, just before he "confessed". Word about the blogosphere is that he was the main funder of Mossad.

    Israel is an embarrassment to Jews. I am so ashamed to be associated with Israel, bc of my own Jewishness. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I detest AIPAC, JDL, ATL, JINSA, PNAC, LIKUD, and the rest of the Zionistisas. The slaughter of children sickens me. But, what sickens me worse are the apologists for it. This situation is mentally unbalanced, and the Jews that support it are increasingly irrational.

    The only thing to do is cut them off. They stole enough from the USA. We are broke, now, thanks to them, and the gravy train has to stop.

    Posted by KatzFreedman at 06/03/2009 @ 08:47am

67. Israel is a rogue state. It has sucked us dry, and we continue to fund it, even though our august leadership is considering taxing our medical insurance benefits to pay for their bailouts and expensive offshore bombing efforts.

    It's time to cut Israel off. No more US funds should go to Israel. Madoff transferred 100 Billion to Tel Aviv, just before he "confessed". Word about the blogosphere is that he was the main funder of Mossad.

    Israel is an embarrassment to Jews. I am so ashamed to be associated with Israel, bc of my own Jewishness. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I detest AIPAC, JDL, ATL, JINSA, PNAC, LIKUD, and the rest of the Zionistisas. The slaughter of children sickens me. But, what sickens me worse are the apologists for it. This situation is mentally unbalanced, and the Jews that support it are increasingly irrational.

    The only thing to do is cut them off. They stole enough from the USA. We are broke, now, thanks to them, and the gravy train has to stop.

    Posted by KatzFreedman at 06/03/2009 @ 08:47am

68. Israel is a rogue state. It has sucked us dry, and we continue to fund it, even though our august leadership is considering taxing our medical insurance benefits to pay for their bailouts and expensive offshore bombing efforts.

    It's time to cut Israel off. No more US funds should go to Israel. Madoff transferred 100 Billion to Tel Aviv, just before he "confessed". Word about the blogosphere is that he was the main funder of Mossad.

    Israel is an embarrassment to Jews. I am so ashamed to be associated with Israel, bc of my own Jewishness. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I detest AIPAC, JDL, ATL, JINSA, PNAC, LIKUD, and the rest of the Zionistisas. The slaughter of children sickens me. But, what sickens me worse are the apologists for it. This situation is mentally unbalanced, and the Jews that support it are increasingly irrational.

    The only thing to do is cut them off. They stole enough from the USA. We are broke, now, thanks to them, and the gravy train has to stop.

    Posted by KatzFreedman at 06/03/2009 @ 08:48am

69. KatzFreedman,

    We are broke now thanks to years of increasing government spending and government involvement in people's lives way beyond that which the founders of this country set forth as what governement involvement would be......

    .....and the increasing government involvement that has not brought improvement in people's lives (such as the failure of the Great Society, etc.) ....

    .....and not only has not brought about improvement but has in many cases made life worse for people because they were taught by the left side of the political fence that government was their salvation......

    .....when in reality self-dependency and self reliance is a person's salvation and also allows them to have self esteem and pride in their accomplishements and puts them in a position to productively help others that need help.......

    ......and that the self-dependency and self-reliance is a separate issue from equality and opportunity....

    .....which was denied many people for many years but has rightfully been fixed and wrongs of the past repaired.......

    ......which is all people wanted anyway was equal opportunity (not equal outcomes) so they could achieve on their own efforts.....

    .....and on top of this, because of Democrat push and promotion over the recent years that the financial industry offer risky oppporunities to people who may not be able to repay their loans...in the name of helping them......

    ......things have suddenly fallen apart and gotten worse, so......

    ......now we are going to have MORE government control over our lives and we are printing money that has no backing so we are getting deeper in debt but......

    ......we are told this is GOOD and we must support this!

    That is why we are broke now, nothing to do with Israel.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 09:34am

70. Now let's deconstruct some of the blatant lies and propaganda by the zionist apologists in here.

    First off, the zionist liar sjchermak loses ALL credibility with this ridiculous statement---"Israel would not be "grabbing land" if it's existence had been accepted by it's neighbors long ago". So expropriation of land for colonization goes against Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva--however all this is "justified" solely because their existence has not been "accepted long ago". What utter nonsense. Explain how this argument makes sense?

    "Israel had no quarrel with a Palestinian State in 1948" NEVER EVER has the zionist state of Israel EVER supported a Palestinian state. EVER. Does this fool even remember the mass expulsions that ensued following the establishment of the zionist state in 1948? Do the haganah, the irgun and the stern gang ring a bell?

    Again he uses the same lie "I remind you, once again, Israel did not object to that(palestinian state) in 1948". Pathetic. Never was it the intetion of the zionist state to be next to an Arab run state, considering that since its inception the zionist state was an expansionist state, a European vassal state to be precise.

    "Israelis have a tie to the region going back to biblical times"--umm the Israelis of 3000 years ago have nothing in common with modern so-called "Israelis".

    "Why the left is so sympathetic towards people who are racist anti-Semites"--REALLY? Why are those on the right so anti arab, who are semites themselves and more so than the great bulk of todays jews? wouldn't that make THEM anti semites? racist? I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a fool to realize that, as Noam Chomsky has put forth, the underlying reason for the right wings belligerent support of Israel is its RACIST attitudes towards the Arab world.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:58am

71. "Somewhere in the late 1800's or early 1900's Jews and some Palestinians began to resettle the land"--this is patently false. Where did you get this from, that discredited liar and propagandist Joan Peters? LOL

    "Jewish settlers turned areas that had not been fertile into fertile areas for agriculture and sustainment of a population"--this is a crock of BS. Palestinian farmers were cultivating land and growing lemon trees and olive trees for hundreds of years before ANY white skinned european jew came onto the scene. Stop LYING.

    "In 1948, the UN proposed a two state solution, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. Israel had no quarrel with that. The Arab world said no, and the answer is no to this day"--the Arab world only said "no" because Israel expropriated MORE LAND than what was outlined in UN resolution 181, which was a land division of 56-44% --in which Israel immediately and with imputiny expropriated 78% of the land instead of the 56 outlined in resolution 181.

    "Among ourselves, it must be clear that there is no place in the country for both peoples together." --Yosef Weitz, Director of the Land and Afforestation Department of the Jewish National Fund

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17am

72. antiimperialist,

    You conveniently leave out all the venom that is in the public record by Arabs/Palestinians that promote they will someday occupy "all" of "Palestine".... and in many cases cite their scripture as basis for doing so.

    You say that "since it's inception the zionist state was an expansionist state".

    How come it took from 1948 to 1967 for any "expansion"?

    Your name is "antiimperialist" and you quote Noam Chomsky! That pretty much renders anything you say invalid or predujiced before you even begin.

    You have no answer, I am sure, for why Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) in his later years, I think in the late 1800's, had the opportunity to travel the world including visiting the Middle East, and commented on how sparsley populated the region was.

    Why did he say that? What does Noam Chomsky have to say about that, eh?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 11:34am

73. Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 10:58am

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 11:17am

    Two consecutive posts with not a single correct fact.

    UN Resolution 181

    In favour: 33

    Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

    Against: 13

    Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

    Abstained: 10

    Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

    "The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions."

    -- Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha, September 16, 1947

    "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

    -- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, May 15, 1948

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 11:34am

74. More enlightenment for antiimperialist

    "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."

    -- Jamal Husseini before the Security Council, April 16, 1948

    Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.

    "The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."

    – The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.

    "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."

    – The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

    "For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."

    – The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 11:50am

75. antiimperialist,

    With regard to "attitude" about the Arab world, you forget that some ill attitude by many toward the Arab world can be explained by the following:

    ==============

    1. Americans have fought in five military campaigns on behalf of Muslims, each one resulting in the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

    2. Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims -- in which] 43 Americans were killed -- were all humanitarian exercises. In none of them was there a significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In the last 20 years the United States of America has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any other nation, Muslim or non-Muslim.

    3. In 1973, Muslim terrorists attacked the American embassy in Sudan and murdered our country's ambassador, Cleo Noel, and the chief deputy of the mission, George C. Moore.

    4. In 1977, Muslim militants murdered the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Frances E. Meloy, and Robert O.Waring, the U.S. economic counselor.

    5. In 1979 radical Muslims violently attacked the U.S. embassy in Teheran, and for 14 months held American diplomats hostage, often in appalling conditions.

    6. In 1998, Muslim militants bombed the American embassy in Nairobi, killing 12 Americans and 280 Kenyans, and bombed our embassy in Tanzania, killing another 11 Americans.

    9 and 11. On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Muslims who had been living in America slit the throats of American pilots and flight attendants and then flew airplanes into civilian buildings in New York City, burning 3,000 innocent Americans to death.

    ========================

    antiimperialist, do you understand now?

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 11:53am

76. antiimperialist,

    Since I am not Joe Biden, and don't plagarize, the source for the facts above (I ran out of room), facts I knew about anyway, is the following article:

    The Speech President Obama Won't Give in Egypt by Dennis Prager

    06/02/2009

    http://www.humanevents.com/ article.php?id=32096

    (link may contain extra spaces)

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 11:55am

77. "You conveniently leave out all the venom that is in the public record by Arabs/Palestinians that promote they will someday occupy "all" of "Palestine"--you conveniently leave out the systematic destruction of Arab livelihoods, their olive trees, their orange orchards, their homes, their dignity---and yet never question WHY there is any animosity towards the Israeli jews?

    "How come it took from 1948 to 1967 for any "expansion"? --Irrelevant point that does not disprove the previous statement. In order to expand its borders, Israel needed military support, financial support etc.

    "Your name is "antiimperialist" and you quote Noam Chomsky! That pretty much renders anything you say invalid or predujiced before you even begin"---So being anti imperialist is a bad thing? as for Noam Chomsky, he is an expert on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and not a single one of your zionist apologists have been able to disprove anything he has put forth. I suppose I could of also mentioned Benny Morris, or Normal Finkelstein--both highly credible, reliable, scholars and historians and experts on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

    "You have no answer, I am sure, for why Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) in his later years, I think in the late 1800's, had the opportunity to travel the world including visiting the Middle East, and commented on how sparsley populated the region waS"---Mark Twain also said Greece was "sparsely populated", however that's besides the point; Mark Twain is not a credible source to be using when defending your argument, regarding Palestines population--perhaps you should look up Israels OWN records, as well as the Brittish Mandate, to give you a clearer idea.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:09pm

78. Anti-socialist--you can quote/mis-quote all the Arab sources, and newspaper sources you want regarding the explusion of Arabs from Palestine, however historical records and facts speak for themselves. I don't have to waste my time on you liars and propagandists to. Given the abundance of data regarding this, it would certainly be a waste of time.

    Also, must I list all the names of political and social leaders whom Israel has assasinated? remember anti social, assasination of political leaders is also against international law.

    Antisocial posts sporadic violence by Arabs against jews, however is silent regarding the systematic explusion and terrorizing of the Arabs during Israels war of independence--atrocities committed by Israeli militias such as the haganah, the irgun and the stern gang, which has been historically recorded. Anti social also neglects to mention Israels historic violence against her neighbors--such as Israels attempt to poison drinking wells with malaria--which Israel adamantly denies, of course, claiming that it was merely an "isolated event".

    Jordinian papers are hardly reliable, especially compared to documented and historical facts regarding Israels atrocities, such as the most recent Gaza attacks; the claim that they are all "lies" and aspects of "arab propaganda" is very reminiscent of the kinds of things said concerning the jewish holocaust following its documentation after WW2. Remember also that Jordan is a US ally, and will tow the line in order to secure this relationship.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:36pm

79. 25. Jerusalem divided and in ruins after two decades of urban warfare. Guerillas on one side supplied by Israel, on the other supplied by the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Talib (formerly Pakistan province of Punjab, now governed by Taliban), Saudi Arabia and the Kuwaiti postwar diaspora. Peace conferences continuing in Sarajevo.

    Posted by Mistral at 06/03/2009 @ 12:37pm

80. Jordinian papers are hardly reliable, especially compared to documented and historical facts regarding Israels atrocities, such as the most recent Gaza attacks; the claim that they are all "lies" and aspects of "arab propaganda" is very reminiscent of the kinds of things said concerning the jewish holocaust following its documentation after WW2. Remember also that Jordan is a US ally, and will tow the line in order to secure this relationship.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:36pm

    Really, so quoting Arab papers from back in the late 40's is supposedly because they are now friends of the US?

    Was it not 9 Arab countries that attacked Israel in 1948, how about the Arab war against Israel in '56, '67, '73. All Israel bullying it's neighbors who vastly outnumbered them?

    You are either a revisionist or a a jihadist supporter.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:43pm

81. "You are either a revisionist or a a jihadist supporter"--you lost most of your credibility with this asinine post, but anyway--it has nothing to do with revisionism, anti social. It has to do with HISTORICAL DOCUMENTED FACTS. Newspapers aren't held under the same scrutiny as historical documentation, so all your newspaper posts are irrelevant.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:45pm

82. Here Antiimperialist, try this on for facts

    <A Memorandum Submitted to the Special Session of The General Assembly of the United Nations

    April 1948

    Published by The Nation Associates

    20 Vesey Street

    New York 7, N.Y.

    Volume 166   New York * Saturday * May 8, 1948  No. 19, Part I

    The General Assembly of the United Nations, for the third time in twelve months, is meeting to discuss "the future government of Palestine."  Discussions are taking place in an atmosphere of violence which may touch off an explosion far beyond the boundaries of the Holy Land.  The question which the General Assembly must face, and world opinion as well, is this: was an inherent injustice in the November 29 resolution of the General Assembly responsible for the current explosion? 

    The Nation Associates presents the facts in this memorandum as essential to a wise and just decision.  An examination of the facts will show that the present violence in Palestine results from:  1) British sabotage of Partition  --  This British sabotage was deliberately undertaken in order to insure British base rights in Palestine in perpetuity, as well as to safeguard British oil and trade and military interests in the Middle East.>

    continued   

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:46pm

83. Nation Magazine Report to the UN continued

    <2) British Alliance with Arab League -- To achieve these ends, the British have embarked on an alliance with the Arab League, composed of the governments of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Transjordan, and Yemen.  The Arab League, and not the Arab Higher Committee, controls the military and political developments among the Arabs of Palestine.  Representatives of the British government were present at the meetings of the Arab League where the revolt was planned and organized and are in continuous connection with it. 

    Within a month after the November 29th resolution, the Arabs were encouraged to believe partition would be substituted by a Federal State, and arms shipments continued to the Arab States despite their known use for Palestine warfare.  On April 28 [1948] Foreign Minister Bevin was still refusing to halt them. 

    The facts will show, moreover, that: 

    The British have allowed 10,000 foreign invaders to enter Palestine, offering the feeble excuse that the British armed forces, consisting, at the outset, of over 80,000 men, could not adequately protect the border. 

    Although since December 11, 1947 the British have been promising to return to Transjordan the contingents of the Arab Legion brought to Palestine for police duty, they have allowed the members of that force to remain in Palestine and to attack Jewish communities.  The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Arab Legion constitutes a major part of the effort to coerce the Jews into accepting less than the Jewish State granted by the United Nations.>

    Continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:48pm

84. Nation Magazine Report to the UN continued

    <Through their action they have admitted into Palestine Arabs of known Nazi allegiance in command of the invading forces, and have even admitted escaped Nazi prisoners of war, now to be found in command of Arab detachments. 

    From secret British intelligence reports, which are quoted extensively in this record, it is clear that the British know and have always known of every single Arab troop movement in Palestine, and that their relations with the Arabs are such that they could ask Arab leaders to request the invading forces to remain unobtrusive. 

    British sabotage has resulted in turning Jerusalem into an armed camp, has permitted the Arabs to seize the Old City and to hold as hostages some 2000 Jews. 

    The British have failed to take any action to insure that Haifa should remain an open city, even though they were fully aware of the desire of local Arabs to achieve this and that the Jews wanted only to be safe from attack. 

    Their prejudice against the Jews has been clearly indicated in their refusal to allow the Jews to arm for defense against Arab attack, and their blowing up of Jewish defense posts; in their turning over to the Arabs - and to certain death - members of the Haganah; in their confiscation of Haganah arms; in their treatment of Jewish defense personnel as criminals. The British have connived at the starving of the Jewish population of Jerusalem by their failure to keep the highways open.  They have refused armed escorts to the Jews.>

    continued  

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:54pm

85. Nation Magazine Report to the UN continued

    <Their attitude to the Arab community is quite different.  By British admission, the Arab community has been armed by the British. Arab train robberies, which have been frequent, have been met with shooting over the heads of the robbers.  Arab desertions from the police, for the purpose of joining the attackers, accompanied by the stealing of arms, have never been prevented, and Arab violators of the peace go unpunished. 

    By arrangement with the Arab League, if partition is shelved through any one of several schemes to assure Arab dominance in Palestine, the British are to receive base rights in Haifa, the Negev and Galilee. 

    But the British are not depending on Arab promises alone.  They have already taken the necessary steps to assure the permanent rights in Palestine to air bases and land and sea communications.  To be able to carry out this program, the Mandatory has required a free hand.  That is why it has kept the United Nations Commission out of Palestine and refused it cooperation. 

    The facts contained in this document come for the most part from the confidential reports of British Intelligence. So intent are the British upon destroying partition that they have shown themselves oblivious to the fact that with it they may destroy the authority of the United Nations, and even the peace of the world.

    Freda Kirchwey, President

    The Nation Associates>

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:56pm

86. Newspapers aren't held under the same scrutiny as historical documentation, so all your newspaper posts are irrelevant.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:45pm

    Well you also lied about the Arabs rejecting UN Resolution 181.

    I posted the vote from the Resolution itself, yet you ignore that also.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:58pm

87. It was the Brittish who initialized the Mandate to give both a homeland for the jews and Palestinians. Regardless of Englands ulterior motives, it doesn't change Israels systematic expulsion and terrorizing the indigenous inhabitants, which has been documentd by Israel herself. So England wanted more than what was originally bargained for--so what? how does that excuse anything perpetrated by the zionist state?

    Indeed, are you surprised that the Arab League joined with Brittian, in order to secure more land for the Arabs (which is probably false, in the end it would of worked out to benefit Britian more)? Remember, the Arab nations were not happy with the creation of a European jewish state within their sphere of influence, for obvious reasons. So is it any wonder that they would form an alliance with Britian? in anycase, all that is irrelevant, because in the end Britian held up its end of the bargain and granted the Jewish state its independence.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 1:12pm

88. "Well you also lied about the Arabs rejecting UN Resolution 181"--well, according to zionist apologists, arabs DID reject resolution 181. But they did, and a reason laid out was:

    Moshe Sharett, the 1st Israeli Foreign Minister, said in justification of why the Palestinian people would reject any Partition to their country. Sharett stated behind closed doors to the Zionist Actions Committee on April 22nd, 1937:

    "...in contrast to us they [Palestinian Arabs] would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine [referring Peel Commission Partition plan]; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be loss to the hinterland [Palestinian] Arab states. .... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 59-60)

    ALSO, are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had the power, the resolution to partition Palestine was not binding since it was indorsed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council.

    The only thing I have been ignoring is your disingenous attempts to construe the facts.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 1:29pm

89. And if you're still in denial, here's a nice little piece that will hopefully give clarity to the argument at hand:

    "I don't understand your optimism.," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipes us out".

    I was stunned by this pessimism, but he went on: "I will be seventy years old soon. Well, Nahum, if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish state I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish state. But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish state, and I would answer: fifty-fifty."

    "But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind," I broke in, "and be Prime Minister of Israel too?"

    "Who says I sleep? he answered simply". (The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldman, p. 99)

    Do you know who Nahum Goldman is, Anti social? perhaps this excerpt from his book will give credence to the argument that no matter what bit of construed tripe you posit as "facts", the truth of the matter is that the Israeli state was birthed

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 1:49pm

90. (continued from last post).....

    and established on explusion, theft and nothing short of pure colonialism. I think Ben-Gurion was being truthful, don't you?

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 1:51pm

91. antiimperialist,

    You question that being "antiimperialist" is a bad thing... .here is why it is a bad thing...

    Because usually people who are against "imperialism" or who are all contorted and upset about "imperialism" are not really against "imperialism"....they are just opposed to actions of people they disapprove of and label as "imperialism".

    In other words, leftists who object to things the United States or Israel as nations or George W. Bush as a person does.

    You probably haven't noticed that most leftists were not too concerned about Soviet imperialism, in fact one prominent leftist lectured America that it was time the Americian people got over their "inordinate fear of communism".

    Fortunately the person who replaced that leftist in the job he held showed the world how you get over the fear of communism......you defeat the communism!

    Also, you cite Noam Chomsky as an "expert" . You need to remember 2 things:

    1. NOBODY in this country other than hard leftists and any one why may wander into or go intentionally to sites such as The Nation has any idea who Noam Chomsky is......Noam Chomsky is of no relevance whatsoever to anything.

    2. Noam Chomsky not only is not an expert, Noam Chomsky has his head stuck so far up his ass it could not be removed even if emergency people with the jaws of life were called to help out. I went to Mr. Chomsky's web site one time and saw some of his enlightment where he proclaimed the sanctions against Iraq were wrong in the 1990's.... along with the opinion that if there had been no sanctions the Iraqi people would have probably overthrown Saddam Hussein by their own initiative!!!

    More chance of 3 ft. of snow in Phoenix Ariz. on July 4 than of THAT EVER happening.

    Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 3:32pm

92. 26. Israel and Palestinian Authority divided at 2009 borders. Borders similar to World War I front, with trenches, razor wire, laser sensors, machine-gun emplacements and constant artillery and rocket fire directed at Sderot, Ramallah, Gaza City, Haifa, Jerusalem, Ashkelon, Bethlehem and other areas.

    Posted by Mistral at 06/03/2009 @ 4:02pm

93. sjchermak,

    Israel has took over th eoccupied territories becasue it wants the land. Menachem Begin and Yitzeak Shamir have alreday told us that the reason Israel ttacked it's neighbors in 1967 (withouth provocation) is because Israel wanted the West Bankm The Sinai and Gaza.

    You are like a man with tourettes. In spite of all the evidecne to the contrary, you believe that so lng as you repeat the carnars that the arabs want Israel out, it will become true.

    Israel has had the goal of expansion since the turn of the last century.

    And please, son't make us laugh about Israel being a free country. The media are routinely arrested for reporting what they are not suposed to report, as are peace protesters. Israel is an aptheid theocracy.

    No the Arabs were not willing to give up their land in 1948. Palestin ehad been their homes for many centuries. refusing to sell your land to immigrants is no anti-Semitic racism or arrogance, it is human nature and it was their right to refuse to do so. All your arguments ultimately come down to is Palestines = all Arabs = bad.

    I'll repeat again that 22 Arab states have singed a peace treaty to recognize Israel as per the 1967 borders. Now if what you said was true, and that the only reason Israel is in the West Bank is for security, then surely all they have to do is return it and they will hace peace. Unless of course, peace is not really what they want.

    The story about Australia being a possible location for the Jewish state is well documented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_state

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 4:29pm

94. ALSO, are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had the power, the resolution to partition Palestine was not binding since it was indorsed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council.

    Posted by antiimperialist at 06/03/2009 @ 1:29pm

    Actually, I have argued the same point here for years.

    Any reading of the archives shows that I am an advocate of returning to the ONLY legally binding international agreement on the region.

    I suggest you actually become acquainted with world history

    The San Remo Conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by the Ambassador of Japan (K. Matsui).

    It determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the former Ottoman-ruled lands of the Middle East.

    The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" and were not completely finalized until four years later. The conference's decisions were embodied in the stillborn Treaty of Sèvres. As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:33pm

95. anti imperialist

    As you read, you will find that the French were assigned responsibility for the region that would become Lebanon and Syria

    The British assigned the region which included what would become Transjordan.

    <The Palestine Mandate, or Mandate for Palestine, was a League of Nations Mandate drafted by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War and formally approved by the League of Nations in 1922. By the power granted under the mandate, Britain ruled Palestine between 1920 and 1948, a period referred to as the "British Mandate."

    The preamble of the mandate declared:

    Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country>

    http://tinyurl.com/296azb

    the British plan of 1946 divided the region into the nation of Transjordan (east of the Jordan River) for the Arabs and the balance to the Jews. that gave the Arabs 75% of Palestine.

    That is the only legitimate legal international agreement on record.

    Those are the facts of history and you have offered nothing to rebut the Arab remarks that disagree with you. They are all verifiable on Google. But that wouldn't fit into your agenda of seeing the Jews destroyed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:40pm

96. sjchermak,

    Where woudl you be about your straw men arguments. You have this fnaciful notion about the lef that has no basis in reality.

    Please provide and exampe of how most leftists were not too concerned about Soviet imperialism. Suggesting that Americians get over their "inordinate fear of communism" is not the same thing as approcing of Soviet imperlialism. China is a communist nationa and Nixon helped us get along fine with them.

    As for Noam Chomsky, the fact that most of most of the right have no idea who Noam Chomsky is shows how pooly educated the they are. After all, Bush didn't know who the leader of Palkistan was. Ignorance is a virtue on the right.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 4:42pm

97. sjchermak,

    Israel has took over th eoccupied territories becasue it wants the land. Menachem Begin and Yitzeak Shamir a- the only reason, and you know this, that it grew is because Israel was under constant attack, began to occupy territories as a defensive measure, and is not now, nor should Israel, give any of that up as long as it's neighbors want Israel gone.

    It is not because Israel in itself by itself has the goal of taking any more of the land than that which it orignally had.

    No doubt you can and will cite some people (Israelis) who may have desired over permanent possession of more than the orignal Israel in 1948. In case you haven't noticed, Israel is a free country with free speech and just like any other place with free speech many people have opinions and express them.

    But for the vast majority of Israelis and the various Israeli governments, that is not the goal and you know it.

    About title to land, that is fantastic, but obviously Arabs were not willing to give up (even with compensation or other exchange) any land to accomodate a tiny portion of that region being Israel. This was and is hard boiled anti-Semitic racism and also extreme arrogance, the demand there be no Israel, only beacause many of the Arabs hate Jews. There was no possiblitity of any reasonable accomodation of any kind that would have been fair to all, because the Arabs were not willing to do any of that. What they want is no Israel, they arrogantly want possession of all of the land, they want to deny the Jewish people a tiny portion for a Jewish state.

    Your BS about Australia being a possible location for the Jewish state is absurd, and only serves to showcase where you are coming from regarding all this.

    I have seen on this site where people like you have suggested Canada, e

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 4:48pm

98. antisocialist

    If the the British plan of 1946 was to divide the region into the nation of Transjordan and the balance to the Jews, then I trust you would be able to produce a map of such a proposal?

    There is also the small matter of the Balfour delcaration, which Israel have clearly vilated:

    "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national honle for the Jewish people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

    "But that wouldn't fit into your agenda of seeing the Jews destroyed."

    That's becasue it doesn't exist.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 4:48pm

99. Antisocial,

    If ytou are interested in sporadic accounts of vilence in 1948, I would be more than happy to provide an extensive list to keep you occupied.

    http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/ news/2009/01/a-land-without-a-people.html

    You will also find accounts and photographs of Palestine at bating back to th eearly 1900's. I was surprised to find out that the Palestinians even had elections and a constitution as early as 1914.

    Israel have been trying to finalise a constitution for 60 years and still can't get it right.

    Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 4:58pm

100. If the the British plan of 1946 was to divide the region into the nation of Transjordan and the balance to the Jews, then I trust you would be able to produce a map of such a proposal?

     http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Transjordan

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 5:03pm

101. antisocialist,

     Your ignoirance is astounding.

     In 1955 -1956, Israel tried to lure Nasser into a war.

     In 1967, Israel started the war by launching an attack on Egypt. Just ask Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir.

     1973 was a result of Nasser's repeated attemtps at negotiation over the Sinai being rebuffed.

     Israel has initiated every conflict since then.

     Were is not for revisionism, we'd still be looking for WMD in Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkien would still be considered an attack by Vietnamese gun boats on US troops.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 5:13pm

102. Thanks antisocialist

     "http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Transjordan"

     So did the King of Jordan have any say in this proposal at the time?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm

103. You will also find accounts and photographs of Palestine at bating back to th eearly 1900's. I was surprised to find out that the Palestinians even had elections and a constitution as early as 1914.

     Israel have been trying to finalise a constitution for 60 years and still can't get it right.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 4:58pm

     They did not have a constitution. That is a lie.

     There never was a national govt in Palestine other than historic Israel.

     They were either part of the Byzantines, the Ottoman Empire, or the British Mandate.

     Arabs in that region referred to themselves as Syrians

     Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the Pell Commission in 1937

     There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"

     Ahmed Shuqeiri (January 1, 1908–February 26, 1980) (Arabic أحمد الشقيري, also transcribed al-Shuqayri, Shuqeiri, Shukeiry etc.), was the first Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization from 1964–1967. After studying law in Jerusalem, he became a member of the Syrian delegation to the United Nations from 1949 to 1951.

     To the UN Security Council in 1949

     "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria"

     I suggest an unbiased history like this one

     E. Karsh - The Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Palestine War 1948 (2002)

     http://tinyurl.com/rxwcbq

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 5:38pm

104. Shingo,

     You are on quite thin ice right now with your comment to me that "You are like a man with tourettes."

     Why?

     You need to go over your recent posts.

     Your typing is lousy. Your grammar is lousy. You have typo after typo with tons of spelling errors.

     Your content and opinions are utter B.S., but there is plenty of liberal B.S. on this site - at least most of it is grammatically correct.

     Everybody here, including me, makes typos from time to time.

     But the train went off the tracks somehow with your last several posts - it is hilarious that you say I have tourettes.

     Maybe I do. Then I have an excuse. What is yours?

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 6:12pm

105. Sory to break it to you antisocialist, but there was a giovernment in Palestine. In Jaffa, Palestinians had bult the the Grand Serai (local government offices). In 1908, to they restored their constitution and the held of Parliamentary elections. The political leadership may not have been recognized by the British Mandate, but it did exist. "Arabs in that region referred to themselves as Syrians" Wrong. The term "Palestinian" referred to all people residing there, regardless of race or religion. Those granted citizenship, were granted "Palestinian citizenship". That included descendents of Judah who were there. For the most part Palestinians got along fine until the Russian and European refugees began to arrive. "There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!" Wrong. The Greek historian Herodotus decided to call the area Palestine sometime around 400BC.. The reference/title Palestine was determined by the British Mandate of Palestine, in 1922 and included all the land lying to the west of the Jordan River; that is, all of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. The term "Palestinian" referred to all people residing there, regardless of race or religion. "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria" One man's opinion. Speaking of the Peel Commission, there are some juicy quotes that demonstrate the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was always on the cards I suggest you get into the habit of using more than one source when making an argument.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 6:19pm

106. BTW antisocialist

     If the British plan of 1946 to divide the region into the nation of Transjordan (east of the Jordan River) for the Arabs and the balance to the Jews is the only legitimate legal international agreement on record, then why does UN Resolution 242 not refrt o any such borders?

     And why, in the wake of the '67 war, did the Israeli government's highest legal authority, Teodor Meron, state that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention," the foundation of international humanitarian law?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 6:22pm

107. sjchermak

     1. Iraq invaded Kuwait after US ambassador to Iraq, April Glabsy, gave Saddam the go ahead. Iraq 2003 was an exercise in empire and remaking the Middle East. It had nothing to do with liberation of a Muslim people. The invasion has led tot he deaths of 1 million Iraqis. Afghanistan has not liberated anyone.

     2. The US backed Ethiopians army attacked Somalia in 2008. The Iraq invasion was based on lies.

     3. Israel tried to assassinate US Ambassador John Gunther Dean.

     4. In 1979 revolution took place after 25 years of rule under a dictator who's Israeli trained secret police dissapeared over 10 thousand Iranians dissidents.

     6. The US routinely killed hundreds of civilians in Iran and Afghanistan, often targeting civilians by accident.

     7. In 1986, the US shot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian air space killing all 296 on board. 8.One of the primary motivations for the 911 terrorist was the unconditional US support for Israel. 9.The Us backed Iraq in a war against Iran that Iraq started, The war killed 1 million people.

     sjchermak , do you understand now?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 6:35pm

108. sjchermak

     My typing is error prone yes, and my grammer might be lousy, but my arguments are solid, which is why you are behaving like a cat on a hot tin roof.

     My content and opinions are sourced and based on facts. None come from imahiary "liberal" sites.

     For too long, Zionist propagandists have pulled off an astounding slight of hand on reality: the oppressed becomes the oppressor, the culprit becomes the victim, illegal colonization is cultural liberation, aggressive expansion is righteous reclamation, genocide is self-defense, apartheid is security, and ethnic cleansing is peace.

     But like i said before, the game is up. Zionist propaghanda has outlived it's shelf life and everyone can see through it.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 6:51pm

109. If the British plan of 1946 to divide the region into the nation of Transjordan (east of the Jordan River) for the Arabs and the balance to the Jews is the only legitimate legal international agreement on record, then why does UN Resolution 242 not refrt o any such borders?

     And why, in the wake of the '67 war, did the Israeli government's highest legal authority, Teodor Meron, state that "civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention," the foundation of international humanitarian law?

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 6:22pm

     242 is not a binding resolution. It only acts as a recommendation.

     As to not recognizing the British Mandate plan, that is because after 1939 and the Arab revolt, the Arabs rejected it. They were not satisfied with the 75% they had been given. The UN then tried to placate the Arabs by further dividing the land west of the Jordan. The Arabs rejected that offer. They were not open to any Jewish presence citing that the Qu'ran does not allow any land that has ever been under Muslim control to be under the control of Jews or anyone else.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:00pm

110. FYI antisocialist,

     Here's a few more juicy morsels from the Peel Commission, proving that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was planned well in advance.

     And regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 Yosef Bankover stated:

     "In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

     In 1937 Menachem Ussishkin wrote about the proposed ethnic cleansing by the Peel Commission:

     "We cannot start the Jewish state with .... half the population being Arab . . . Such a state cannot survive even half an hour. And about transferring sixty thousand Arab families he said: "It is most moral ..... I am ready to come an defend ... it before the Almighty." (Righteous Victims, p. 143-144 and Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 37)

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 7:01pm

111. Shingo,

     I guess you have declared my tourettes cured and I am now like a cat on a hot tin roof.

     With every post I make now, will I be diagnosed with a new ailment?

     You are declaring this argument over... interesting........ it seems that the global warming proponents (such as Algore) do the same thing when they are arguing global warming.

     Is that the common theme among leftists? A leftist states his or her case, then declares the argument is over?

     I mentioned Algore...now there is someone who does have an ailment.....he is a Village Idiot.

     And once again, I apologize.... it is wrong to insult Village Idiots.

     Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2009 @ 7:05pm

112. More on the legality of the 1922 San Remo Conference and the British Mandate violation by the UN

     <When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.">

     So, the UN yielded to the threats of the Arab members in direct violation of the UN charter.

     As you noted yourself, Arabs and Jews actually both agreed that UN Resolution 181 was not binding upon them. The Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:

     "In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed. The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights"

     What makes all of this more absurd is that the San Remo Conference created the nations of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Egypt. Yet we hear nothing about how that was not legitimate. Only the creation of Israel is disputed.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:07pm

113. sjchermak

     one minute your arguing for Israel to hold on to the occupied territories, the next your arguing that Israel should be able to hold on to the plot of land it was originally given the next your arguing about Islamic terrorism, even Al Gore as though that were relevant to the topic. So yes, you are indeed a cat on a hot tin roof.

     The fact is that world opinion is swinging against Israel very noticeably, and the spin, propaganda and censorship isn't working like it used to. Once the tide has turned, it wont turn back again. Israel has been exposed for what it is ad there is no turning back.

     Uour pathetic arguments have been smashed to pieces and you are now reduced to arguing about Al Gore. how sad and pathetic.

     Don't apologize for insult Village Idiots. We had one in office for 8 years, so fire away.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 7:13pm

114. antisocialist,

     How does the UN yielded to the threats of the Arab members, when the most powerful member is the US?

     While the General Assembly may only give advice, the Security Council does have the power to enforce it's resolutions, such as 242.

     The creation of Israel as per the 1967 borders is not disputed. The only ones disputing those borders as Israel.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 7:20pm

115. While the General Assembly may only give advice, the Security Council does have the power to enforce it's resolutions, such as 242.

     The creation of Israel as per the 1967 borders is not disputed. The only ones disputing those borders as Israel.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 7:20pm

     242 is a Chapter 6 resolution which can only carry the weight of recommendation.

     Only Chapter 7 resolutions are binding and carry UN enforcement. There have been NO Chapter 7 resolutions regarding Israel.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:29pm

116. antisocialist

     Chapter 7 Resolutions are indeed binding and 242 is a Chapter 7 Resolution.

     It was under Chapter & resolutions that Iraq was driven out of Kuwait.

     If the British Mandate plan was legally leg imitate, as you suggest, then the Arabs would have not been allowed to reject it.

     From the Palestinian stand point, they already had 100% of the land, so it was not a case of the 75% they had been given, so much as the 25% they were losing. Jews only comprised about 10% of the population at the time, and only owned 7% of the land, so it is understandable that ceding 25% was unacceptable. After all, the British had already promised to grant Palestinians independence.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 7:39pm

117. antisocialist

     I stand corrected. 242 wad indeed a Chapter 6 resolution.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 7:47pm

118. The Balfour Declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83).

     In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:

     "Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)

     In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.

     In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:

     "Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

     Posted by Shingo at 06/03/2009 @ 8:11pm

119. your articles make my blood boil but i will cool off. in January you asserted that the operation in Gaza was 'punishment' to the palestinians who elected Hamas. now you call it rape.

     israel is under constant threat and received thousands of bombs over 7 years from Gaza. why do you refuse to stand in Israeli shoes; they are much nicer than anything you can buy in LA or Paris? Don't you like nice shoes? i thought most little girls did?

     Sorry, but your articles are nothing less than disgusting, if not arrogant and one-sided.

     Posted by ojai44 at 06/04/2009 @ 08:14am

120. 27. The Passover war is ignited when Uighur commandos, veterans of the Xinjiang Islamic Republic struggle for independence during the breakup of China, infiltrate through the Kurdistan-Judea border, seizing the experimental Kinneret fusion power plant. Major fighting, however, is restricted to the area of the Negev rice farmlands invaded by Hamas and Egyptian irregular troops ("Alaqan Volunteers"). Refugees are evacuated from Elat by the Swiss Navy. The line of battle swings back and forth for several weeks until peace negotiators in Nicosia agree to a truce. The armistice line is almost identical to the borders prior to the 2087 Be-er Ora Incident.

     Posted by Mistral at 06/04/2009 @ 11:04am

121. I make contributions to The Nation Associates, but I no longer subscribe, partly because of articles like this one that show a strong anti-Israel bias. There's enough blame to go around for Israel, Hamas, Fatah and the surrounding Arab governments, but you'd hardly know it from reading The Nation. I've been a left-leaning liberal for almost all of my ninety years ( I didn't take an interest in politics until the election of 1928; I was nine at the time. I wore my Norman Thomas pin proudly) and I would dearly wish to subscribe again as I did for years, on and off, but the prickly, self-righteous tone of many of the articles grated on me to such an extent that I decided to be a Nation supporter but not a reader.

     Posted by mortsel at 06/04/2009 @ 2:00pm

122. ojai44

     Israel is under no threat from anyone. The have the 4th most powerful military force and no one in thee region is a remoite threat. Israel fired the same numbr of shelld into Gaza over the 12 months after it withdrew from Gaza that were fired at Israel over 7 years. During the Gaza attack, Isreal flew over 3 thousand sorties.

     Standing in Israeli shoes is like standing in Nazi jack boots. It's a fettich that only appeals to those with a distubed mind.

     You might find the articles disgusting, arrogant and one-sided, but facts are not fair and balanced.

     Like they say, the truth hurts.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/04/2009 @ 4:19pm

123. mortsel,

     If you were subscribing to the The Nation Associates to read what you wanted to hear, then you were misytaken.

     Israel isoverwhemingly to blame, so yes, you can expect a strong anti-Israel bias. To egue that there's enough blame to go around is dishonest. Israel is in the driver's seat and has been since 1967. They control all the territories, including Gaza, as well as air, land a sea access. The continie to build ilgeal settlements, demolish Palestinian homes, inflict colletive punishment and vilates international law.

     Even left-leaning liberals with a Zionist bent have an innate abilty to become rabid right wingers at the mere mention of Israel.

     1,400 people were slaughtered in Gaza over a period of three weeks, most of whom were women and children. Such an outrage deserves nothign less that utterconmneation, condemnation and contept for Israel.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/04/2009 @ 4:24pm

124. just take a look at the Palestine maps in history. You can clearly see what the Israelis are: http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/0_pal_facts_MAPS.htm

     Posted by i9natz at 06/04/2009 @ 4:34pm

125. Here is a map of Palestine showing the land owned by Arabs and Arabs in 1948. Moshe Dayan's signature appears in the top left hand corner.

     http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story582.html

     Posted by Shingo at 06/04/2009 @ 6:58pm

126. Shingo

     Your implying that I have a Zionist bent is enough to tell me what your bent is. If I had any doubts, your "Nazi jackboots" analogy made your bias clear.

     I think you ought to take a deep breath before you toss around non-facts like "fourth most powerful military force" and " 1400 people....most of whom were women and children." The U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China, India and Pakistan are all nuclear powers and each is more powerful than Israel. As for your second fictional factoid, that's just what it is, a fictional factoid . Have the Israelis developed military weapons that screen out adult males and kill only women and children? Hyping your arguments undermines them.

     .

     Posted by mortsel at 06/05/2009 @ 12:05am

127. mortsel

     My bent is human rights.

     These ARE fact.

     Israel has the fourth most powerful military force in the world and 200 nukes.

     1400 people were massacred by Isrsel in Gaza, most of whom were women and children.

     Israel's air force is more powerful that France, India and Pakistan.

     Isrel has more nukes than China, India and Pakistan.

     Israel has admitted thatit targets cililians.

     "The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets." That was by Ze'ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha'aretz. )

     "There was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities, satisfying Israel's goals.

     Commenting on a speech by Menachem Begin, that resented a picture, Eben said, "of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death an anguish on civilian populations, in mood reminiscent of regimes (ie Nazi) which neither Mr Begin nor I would dare to mention by name" That was by Abba Eben (Israeli diplomat and politician)

     As you can see, I have my facts. Sorry that you can't stomach the truth.

     Posted by Shingo at 06/05/2009 @ 07:01am

128. 28. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states decline as petroleum resources are exhausted. Dictators, wealthy families and clerics flee to Switzerland, South America and Africa as the rest of the population sinks into desperate poverty and the land, ravaged by warfare and the environmental catastrophes of the end of the fossil fuel era, gradually reverts to a desert. Egyptian, Israeli and Turkish peacekeeping forces try to maintain stability in the region as the United Nations supplies food aid and attempts to find a way to resettle the population.

     Posted by Mistral at 06/05/2009 @ 08:12am

129. sjchermak,

     "Israelis have a tie to the region going back to biblical times. It is their ancestral homeland."

     Let's not go back that far. Let's go a few hundred years and ask what the world shall do with the ancestral homeland of the Americans Indians. Let's ask what the world shall do with the ancestral homeland of the Africans who were enslaved and are now called African Americans. Should populations in Africa be displaced because Africans in the diaspora want to return to their ancestral homelands?

     How about we deal with displacement that occur in the context of living generations? How about we ask whether it is proper for a people to, in this day and age, and going back only a few decades, force people off their lands, bulldoze their homes, illegally transfer their populations to occupied territories, contain the original inhabitants in razor-wired ghettos, and racially segregate their society? How about we ask whether the world community should do something about this? It is, after all, contrary to international law.

     If people have a right to return to their ancestral homelands from long bygone ages, then we shall have to dramatically remake the world if we are to truly pursue justice. Perhaps the German people shall like to return to northern Indian where some of their ideologues proclaim a racial myth that identifies this as the place of their origination?

     Posted by wwsword at 06/07/2009 @ 2:42pm

130. sjchermak,

     "At some point in history that region got sparsely populated."

     This claim has long been exposed as fraudulent. This fraud was perpetrated by Joan Peters and continued by Alan Dershowitz and other Zionist propagandists.

     Palestine was not sparsely populated. Zionists engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population and now illegally occupy the land.

     Posted by wwsword at 06/07/2009 @ 2:43pm

131. 29. Rising sea levels push the inhabitants of Gaza and the Israeli Mediterranean coastline into conflict over the small amount of territory remaining to Israel. A besieged state of Israel hangs on to the strategic areas of the Golan, Jerusalem and the Negev.

     Posted by Mistral at 06/08/2009 @ 07:50am