Israel to grant West Bank entry to Iraqi Palestinians

Your thesis: I agree with you on some subjects, therefore: 1) I shouldn't complain when you go overboard, lie or distort on those subjects 2) I shouldn't disagree with you on any other subject. That's why I have a blog called The Radical Moderate. I'm fed up with people such as you and Silvienned, who take an absolutist view of the world and think everyone must march in lock-step with you or else. Grow up and learn some logic.

They claim you're an "Intelligence Officer". Start acting the part and stop making enemies of your friends...Got it??

Ben, saying that all presidents have faults, which they do, doesn't really go very far to excuse the president. It's more than just a fault to embroil your country in an endless war which costs the lives of over 4000 Americans, and also, to lie about the meaning of the war itself. Cheney's secretive actions in the administration are without precedent..look at the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping..Americans haven't seen this stuff before...

If at all possible, since wing nuts such as S and you rarely have that ability. "all the Presidents have had faults", gosh, really? So that justifies violating the constitution and treating citizens like dirt. That complaining about gross violations of said constitution is called "nitpicking" is truly sad. Roosevelt and Johnson did bad things, but Nixon clearly violated the law and had to resign or be impeached. You seem intent on ignoring the facts, but as a religious extremist and Shrub supporter, that doesn't surprise me. So all Presidents are equal because none are perfect? What a huge ability to ignore logic. Got it...

To ignorance, don't you? Still avoiding the other threads where direct questions were asked. Syria & Iran were important, but not as important as Lebanon & the EU. You can't eliminate guerilla warriors who are supported by the citizenry, at least not using tactics allowed to Israel. Of course, the UN allows nation everywhere to be barbaric in order to win, just look at the lack of action against Russia (Chechnya), Iran/Iraq during their war, Sudan when Arabs slaughter animists, Christians black Muslims, Congo, which lost 4 million people in four years of jihad... Israel both lives by a higher standard and has an even higher standard demanded from it by hypocrites worldwide. We would never do what would have been necessary to destroy Hizbullah, we could only push it back and slightly disturb the ignorant sleep of the West. We waged the war very badly, and should have accomplished it better and with fewer IDF casualties, but we got most of what was needed.

In case "redux" has "no meaning" for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redux As for Shrub, read an author named "Molly Ivans". She's the one who coined the term for the current Prez. Check ISBN 0-375-50399-4. In case you decide you might wish to learn what an open mind is, try to read it. Also, in case the slowness you constantly show continues and the word continues to lack meaning: We've already had a Bush, as small bush is a shrub.

"bring up Florida and chads". That's old news. Shrub and his minions have violated the Constitution multiple times since then, as I've pointed out on multiple threads. It's you right wing nuts who ignore all that and supported the impeachment of a President based on lying in a civil trial deposition about consensual sex when asked a question that was illegal since it was illegally leaked by the special prosecutor. The concept that it's ok to impeach a man you don't like who didn't violate the constitution while archly defending bozos such as Reagan and Shrub makes you truly sad. "you've got to live with it", and did I ever say I didn't? Of course not, all I said is I don't have to respect the man who doesn't respect me or most US citizens. You have to live with that. PS: Lets see if Haaretz's censorship extends to me complaining here that they won't post my replies to Silvienne while on a topic Lefties agree with, Shrub, they're posting my replies to you.

But why do you think it was never possible to have an overwhelming victory in Lebanon against Hezbollah? Because of the presence of Iran nearby supporting Hezbollah? I don't think you can trust Nasrallah's word on anything, however. Although he says he won't fight Israel again, you never can tell. Being prepared for the worst is always a good idea.

Not all Americans were concerned about Clinton's sex escapades..some thought, as I did, it was ridiculous to spend thousands of dollars on Ken Star's sanctimonious "report"...Clinton had a balanced budget, a surplus, and no war. His mistake was lying about the Monica thing, I think; he should have admitted it. I can tell you many Europeans and British were scornful of America for persecuting a successful president because of that. He isn't there to win a morality contest, after all, but to run the country. Remember Bush's DWI that was kept quiet? David Teich has never mentioned serving in the IDF but of course you're probably correct. I understand what you mean by saying he's a member of your family. Chaverim Kol Yisroel, I think, means something like, all Israelis are friends..Dr.David Gross said Chaverim is friend or companion, Yisroel, Israelis or Jews. I probably comprehend what you mean fairly well.

You continually use the word "Shrub", it has no meaning to me...Best you keep it for yourself...

David Teich, it's as if he is a member of my family, in fact he is.. When I go to sleep at nite I never remain angry at my wife...There's always tomorrow to look forward... In Hebrew we day "Chaverim Kol Yisroel"... David know what it means, you can look it up... I'm certain David wore the same green uniform I did...

For a leader to be respected he must seem to be squeaky clean.. Clinton almost had to resign because of his secual exploits..American's cared very much about his extra marital activities...It was in the news all the time..

...I think they censor everyone here, and sometimes a poster has to try two and three times to get a post through.

...I totally agree with your post #446 in its total entirety. Completely, and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Why are you saying "Shabbat Shalom" to David Teich who was rude to you, and not to me? Well is it said by the ancient philosphers, that life is full of these little injustices!

"America and it`s leaders are fallable, I never said they weren`t.." Yes, but some of the others you referred to, who cares about their sex lives??!! If they are going to start a war - a pre-emptive one at that, the very first time America ever did that - then they had better have war/combat experience, or be sure to hire advisors who do. Cheney, Rumsfeld...two more non-starters in the field of war...

If we want to review history, all the Presidents have had faults.. Roosevelt ignored the plight of the Jews Nixon had Watergate Johnson made a mess in Vietnam This nit picking can go on endlessly..It's time to end it. Shabbat Shalom

Roosevelt never served, he had Polio, althoug he did have mistress'. Truman was a soldier in WWI JFK served in WW2, had lots of girl friends. Johnson, as far as I know, never served, he too was rumoured to be a ladies man... Nixon - I never saw it mentioned that he served, though he did have Watergate... Bush I, WW2 Bush 2 National Guard. A surgeon doesn't have to have had a disease before he's allowed to operate on someone who has it.. America and it's leaders are fallable, I never said they weren't..

"bring up Florida and chads". That's old news. Shrub and his minions have violated the Constitution multiple times since then, as I've pointed out on multiple threads. It's you right wing nuts who ignore all that and supported the impeachment of a President based on lying in a civil trial deposition about consensual sex when asked a question that was illegal since it was illegally leaked by the special prosecutor. The concept that it's ok to impeach a man you don't like who didn't violate the constitution while archly defending bozos such as Reagan and Shrub makes you truly sad. "you've got to live with it", and did I ever say I didn't? Of course not, all I said is I don't have to respect the man who doesn't respect me or most US citizens. You have to live with that. PS: Lets see if Haaretz's censorship extends to me complaining here that they won't post my replies to Silvienne while on a topic Lefties agree with, Shrub, they're posting my replies to you.

As for Lebanon, think about: 1) The L army hadn't been in the South since the PLO took over in the late 60's. Now they can move about 2) UNIFIL is stronger, and recent attacks by H show the UN's starting to do it's job 3) Nasrallah said he didn't expect Israel to respond, and wouldn't have attacked if he had. He also recently said he doesn't plan on attacking Israel No, it wasn't overwhelming victory, but that was never possible. It was, however, in Israel's column.

First, lets note that in 425 I gave an url of another thread in which Haaretz finally let me respond. Are they censoring you too, or have you just run away from fact-based questions again? "I both know and understand." No, you don't, because you then immediately repeat "would be foolish and self-destructive". That shows you intentionally ignored exactly what I said: That they've shown an ability to be just that foolish and destructive time and again. Another thread you ran from mentioned Iran sending its children through mine-fields, to clear the mines for troops, during the Iran-Iraq war that killed more than a million Muslims. You ran, because you refuse to admit they're willing to make that sacrifice for jihad. "That`s just my opinion", based on false logic and ignoring documented facts. Yes, S, that's your normal way.

S: "Right, David, that just about says it all, doesn`t it?" Yes, it does. You, of course, intentionally ignored what I've repeatedly said, including in 420: "She must take Israel completely out of context from the rest of the world, in order to excoriate the only Jewish majority nation." You intentionally focus exclusively on Israel so that you can lie and hold Israel to a different standard. That is clearly antisemitism, regardless of how many times you whine it isn't. "That is peace, David", no, it isn't. When Egypt allows the tunnels, supports Hamas, practices wargames exclusively against a country looking like Israel, it's more of an armistice. Especially when you pay attention to all the other points I've mentioned about Egypt and its politics. However, again, you've always run away from doing that, as context would ruin your claims.

Whatever is the truth of his National Guard service, one thing is certain; he didn't have to go to Vietnam. When you mention that there is political pressure in any army, and it isn't what you know, but who you know, that must be how he escaped Vietnam? Although out of respect for you I will respect his office, I still think that a president who has never been militarily involved in war has no business sending others off to war unless the cause is absolutely essential. Afghanistan was and Iraq was clearly not. And now... Florida and the Hanging Chads! The Repubs fiddled the election!! (David T. might be going to say something like that:))

If you don't like, then don't vote for him next time he runs..Meanwhile he's in office until Jan. '09.... I fully awaiting your bringing up Florida and the chads.. Most officers, in any army, including Tzahal are subject to political pressure..It's the old school ofit ain't what you know, it's who you know, who you blow..That's how they go about get advanced in rank with all the perks that accrue.. Another year and a half yoo'll be out of your miserly with Bush...Meanwhile, you've got to live with it...

"fascination with Bush". Notice that Ben's the one that says we "must" respect the President just because he has the title, regardless of what we do. Sadly, he thinks it's unnatural to pay attention to the actions of presidents. Sad. A man gets a cush position, can't prove he showed up to it, officers admit they know they're under political pressure, and then Benjie claims it must be ok because of his discharge. That's like saying a man didn't do a crime because he got off on a technicality. Illogical as is Ben's wont. "Six years." No attendance or payment records in Alabama, '72-3. That Lloyd never produced the payment records, just, at the request of the President, the same man Lloyd was "auditing", says Shrub did what neither proves he did, isn't fact. So, send me to an url with full records for Shrub's Alabama attendance and payment...

He fulfilled his hourly requirements for the six years he had contracted for.. "Six-year service obligation The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. On May 27, 1968, Bush signed a six year obligation to complete "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each fiscal year (typically consisting of four four-hour periods during one weekend each month), plus a minimum of 15 days of Annual Active Duty Training (for Bush, as a pilot, typically split into periods of duty of a few days each during the year).[citation needed] Exceptions can made in this obligation, for hardship, the needs of the service, or other reasons. Some critics have claimed (1) that disciplinary action should have been taken against Bush for his failure to meet his service obligation during 1972 and 1973, because he missed so many drills, and that (2) Bush should not have been released from the Texas National Guard in October 1973 because he had not fulfilled his six-year obligation.[citation needed] Defenders of President Bush have countered that he was honorably discharged, which normally would not happen unless he had satisfactorily completed his service.[citation needed] In early 2004, at the request of the White House, retired Texas Air National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Albert Lloyd reviewed Bush's payroll records and stated that Bush earned 253 points for service done during his 1968?69 retirement year (May 27 through May 26 of the following year), 340 points for 1969?70, 137 points for 1970?71, 112 points for 1971?72, 56 points for 1972?73, and 56 points for 1973?74. National Guard members needed at least 50 points for a given year for a satisfactory retirement year. The memorandum from Lloyd concluded "This clearly shows that 1LT George Bush has satisfactory years for both 72?73 and 73?74 which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."

If you can show me that Bush didn't receive an "HONORABLE DISCHARGE", I might change my mind...As far as the service was concerned, he completed his tour..That's not a "waffle", that's hard cold fact...If he got out early, somebody approved it and signed off on the discharge..Call it protekzia, or whatever you wish, he was Honorably Discharged..

...by calling me "extremist" in a post about George Bush. With apologies to Ben, I consider him to be the worst president in recent history; his pointless pre-emptive war against a country which hadn't attacked us, the sinister activities of Dick Cheney, who has abrogated more power to the presidency than anyone before him; the secret warrantless wire-tapping of American conversations; not to mention the hypocricy of Bush yapping on about God while his administration is knee-deep in scandal, corruption; the pardon of Scooter Libby, the outing of Valerie Plame for revenge...omg! and..Karl Rove and his dirty tricks...anything else? Yes, plenty, but too depressing to write about... However, I will respect the office in respect for Ben Jabo, but not the man.

countries and their attitude to Israel, I both know and understand. Neither am I denying one bit of it. What I am saying is that any Islamic country in the Middle East would be foolish and self-destructive start another war with Israel. They have been burned too often in the past by Israel to be so foolhardy again. On the other hand, of course, there is our own country, which never learns about foreign wars either...but still. I just don't believe that any Muslim country is going to start anything again with Israel. That's just my opinion, and please feel free to ignore it. Regarding last year's Lebanon invasion, some Israelis writing in Haaretz also consider that Israel lost to Hezbollah/Lebanon. I'm not at all sure what to think about it; I asked Ben about it earlier.

In a never ceasing stream. '67 wasn't "the last time". They also remember '72, which is credited with leading towards them getting the canal back and working again. They also remember last summer in Lebanon, which the Muslim world considers a victory. "Egypt would have to be out of its collective mind", that is Islam -- just as you've ignored the facts I posted about the Iranian Ayatollahs and dying for jihad (or making others die for jihad), you're ignoring the Egyptian Islamicists. Those are people such as Sadat's son, a leading politician who says the peace treaty can be ignored because it doesn't agree with the Koran or Sharia law. While you hold tightly to your ignorance, by definition, you'll never learn.

Yes, Shrub "DID show up for Air National Guard service." In Texas. However, Alabama's what I mentioned. He doesn't have pay and attendance records showing he showed up in Alabama, with a whole lot of evidence show ing he did work on a political campaign. Poor try.

Is the problem. I too, salute the flag and, more importantly, the constitution. The MH holder earned his respect and the salute. Shrub started off with the benefit of the doubt, and them removed it over the last 7 years. He's trampled on the flag and the constitution. That wouldn't get him a MH. That you can't seem to get through that is more support for the blind foolishness of extremism shown by you and Silvienne.

to try it on with Israel again. Look at all the equipment they lost the last time, not to mention soldiers as well. However, nations don't seem to learn by war...look at our own country. You are right, what I'd read was that Bush didn't complete the full term of his National Guard service. You say he served, okay, but not like you served..anyway, I've already said that out of respect for his office and for you, I won't bother slagging him off anymore! Egypt would have to be out of its collective mind to start it again with Israel, surely, no matter who runs the government... Regards

Bush DID show up for Air National Guard service. According to some people he didn't complete his full term of it..Others contend he received an early discharge..In any event, he did serve... Meanwhile, whether we like it or not, win or lose, he's the President and deserves the respect of the office he holds... Regarding Egypt, Mubarak is an old man...He's grooming his son to follow him...I don't think the fundamentalists will allow sthe son to take over or else they will depose him shortly thereafter..The "Peace" will hold as long as the upcoming leadership allow it to...I, personally don't think it will hold up very long after Mubarak dies...

..trying to see how many little prods and digs I could get in at Bush before you called me on it. I knew you would, sooner or later..anyway, in deference to you, I shall refrain from doing so again..but not until I point out that David Teich is right when he says that Bush didn't bother to show up for his National Guard service But, I respect the office, if not the man. I think that's fair. Regards the "peace" between Egypt and Israel, I understand what you say about the fragile and dishonest nature of that peace, but it's better than nothing, and probably the best Israel is going to get from Egypt. Nothing will make Egypt love Israel, but as for its threats, I bet that's all they are, Egypt won't have forgotten what happened in 1967! Regards

Silvienne, it's not really what can be called a "True Peace"..It's a cessation of hostilities..Threats against Israel have been made from withing the Egyptian Parliament.. True, some Israeli's visit Egypt, there's very little return traffick..Commerce, nothing woth mentioning...It similar to your living with a mate that you don't really talk to, but tolerate to keep things quiet...Documents were signed and can readily be torn up by either side..

No, you really don't see why I support him. I support the office he holds as President and Commander and Chief..I salute the flag which represents the nation.. As an example, let's assume a soldier is wearing the Medal of Honor, the soldier isn't being saluted, it's the medal that gets it... In plain talk, it's the nation that's being supported, not the man..Men are fallable, the nation endures..

"Your unwillingness to discuss Rwanda is proof of your antisemitism" Right, David, that just about says it all, doesn't it? Can't imagine why I never thought of that. Whatever you say... "Peace between Egypt and Israel", I said. You said, "No, just an absence of war" That is peace, David. And absence of war.

He has spent 7 years disrespecting the constitution and our citizenry. Respect is earned and Shrub has shown that he does not deserve any. If you want to hassle her hassling, address one Iraq example: Shrub was warned by military advisors of critical things about which he was warned: 1) He was risking the reformation of Afghanistan by removing troops to attack Iraq while A was so unstable. 2) He needed a lot more troops left in Iraq after "Mission Accomplished" or he'd end up with what we now have. 3) He needed to remove the top echelon of the army, not disband it. In all cases, the man who didn't show up for easy National Guard duty ignored the advise of experts because his god told him differently. Oh, wait, now I see why you support him...

"I have nothing to say about Rwanda", you still don't get it but that's my point. Your unwillingness to discuss Rwanda in contrast is proof of your antisemitism. "I thought Egypt had a treaty with Israel", yup. "peace between the countries", nope. Just an absence of war. Its known, not just by Israel, but by the US, the UN, the EU and everyone else involved, that Hamas brings in arms, explosive and materials to build rockets through a multitude of tunnels to the Sinai. That you choose to ignore that is a further sign of antisemitism. "doubtful that there would be any tunnels", they've admitted they have tunnels and news reports have covered tunnel collapses. Why do you still lie? Oh, right... "What would Egypt have to gain from breaking their treaty?" Relations with the rest of the Islamic world, fewer attacks by MB/Hamas, etc. BTW: It took three posts to find a censor who'd accept them, but I've also responded on http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/889468.html

Whether you like him or not, he's still the President, show a bit of respect, if you please.. Did you really expect the U.S. to equip the Iraqi forces with truncheon's?..They were supposed to monitor a violent country, not a girl scout camp... Surely you've noticed British police carrying sub-machine guns, I did..They appear to be Heckler & Koch MP-5's, firing a 9mm pistol bullet, in itself a range limited to about 100 yards of accurate fire...Good for crown control, not really a battle weapon... I carry a pistol that has a bigger bullet, with about the same range...Although I can't use it like a sub-machine gun. Rifles are really no big concern, their range and destructive ability are limited... AK-47's & M-16's are effective to about 300 yards...More concerned with Kassams, RPG'S & Armor piercing devices..

...have foreseen such an event? "Iraqis changed their minds about working with the USA and took their guns with them for future use" Has that guy in the White House no advisors that could have pointed out to him just such an eventuality? No, that's unfair on my part. Whole battalions of advisors could have done so and he wouldn't listen. Now look at the mess we're in; Iraq a chaotic shambles, and our government repeating its costly mistake by arming Fatah, ostensibly against Hamas. Fatah will do the exact same thing as the Iraqis. We just never learn... Regards

...like I've told you before, I have nothing to say about Rwanda. I know you don't like that reply but it's the only one I've got. I don't know enough about Rwanda to comment. As for the tunnels from Gaza to Egypt that you mention, I thought Egypt had a treaty with Israel, and peace between the countries. Doesn't that make it doubtful that there would be any tunnels? What would Egypt have to gain from breaking their treaty?

American didn't give them to any Iraqi factions. She used them to arm Iraqi's she was training to help her form a new Iraq..Problem is and was that Iraqi's don't have any allegiance to a central government..They're tribal and clan allied...When the Iraqi's changed their minds about working with the U.S., they took their guns with them for future use...

"long time", because Haaretz is busy censoring my replies to some thread and you've run away from others. "Rwanda". Notice how she must ignore discussing clear analogies that are obvious from her arguments. Why? Because if she did, she'd have to begin treating Israel the same way she treats other nations, and that's not why she's posting. She must take Israel completely out of context from the rest of the world, in order to excoriate the only Jewish majority nation. "better", so you're saying that better means allowing terrorists to take over a people you claim aren't really terrorists? That's a strange definition. So here's another analogy: Germany financed Vichy France, so I guess it would have been "better" if the Allies hadn't supported the French underground? Oops, context again... "...could supply Hamas". YOu really do news that you can't blame on Israel. It's a well documented fact that, believe it or not, Gaza shares a border with Egypt and tunnels are rampant.

israel's protection of Saudi Arabia is being done by Israel maintaining a presence in the area..The U.S. well knows that if Iran attacks Israel, which she has threatened to do several times, the next Iranian attack will be on the Saudi oil interest..In effect that means Israel will retaliate, probably preventing Iran from attacking the Saudi's..Hamas as is Hezbollah are both Iranian puppets..Arms & money being supplied to them by Iran...That's why the U.S. want Israel to control Hamas, an Iranian puppet.

Hello David; long time no see. As regards your question about Rwanda, if I wanted to discuss and debate Rwanda, I'd be on a Rwandan website, even supposing there is such a thing. That's my only answer for that. As for the civil war, okay, Iran and Syria are supplying Hamas, does that make it right that we supply Fatah? It does not; we're supposed to be "better" than those two countries, not imitating their behaviour. I also think it's a mistake because Fatah and Hamas could join together secretly and use the weapons from America against Israel. America has just lost track of thousands of guns it gave to an Iraqi faction; now doing the same thing in the middle east? Another mistake. Also I don't see how Iran and Syria could supply Hamas with the tight control Israel has on Gaza's borders.

Iran, Syria and other nations are helping Hamas, they're also "assisting" in the Pal civil war. If nations think it would be terrible for the Pals to be ruled by Hamas, nations have a right to assist the people they think would be better for the people. So tell us, were you demanding the West stay out of Rwands, because if we went in to end the slaughter we'd be "assisting" in a civil war? Or are you going to avoid that one too?

truly daft if it thinks that Israel would protect Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabia accept the protection..I've seen on the Internet little bits and pieces of Saudi TV and it's even worse that Hamas TV with Fafur the Martyr-Mouse; I read an article somewhere saying that Saudi TV shows programmes with cartoons of Jews drinking the blood of Arabs, how utterly ludicrous, but still..why should America want Israel to control Hamas, Hamas is no threat to America and has said many times that its only enemy is Israel. Regards Lebanon, you know that war last year, some Haaretz articles said that Israel lost that to Hezbollah, do you believe that? I know what a Kefiyah is, just looked it up Yahoo Search, it's that sort of pointy black and white headdress Arafat used to wear..as for throwing me no further than you'd trust Farah, I weigh 110lbs, so put no trust in Fatah, I could probably be thrown quite a long way without much difficulty, and yes, even I must sadly agree, Arabs do kill each other often

Always has, always will...So does any nation.. The U.S. is relying on Israel to keep Hamas under control, since Hamas & Hezbollah are both Iranian vassals...There's an old adage, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"..U.S. is looking to Israel to indirectly protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Egypt, who are all scared crapless of Iran...Lebanon is a lost cause, Iran is calling the shots using Hezbollah as it's puppet...I trust Fatah as far as I can throw you..Considering the fact I don't know what you look like, your home address or how much you weigh...Muslims don't get along with each other..Iran vs Iraq, Fatah vs Hamas, Sunni vs Shia and so forth...They kill one another at the drop of a Kefiyah.

America is assisting in a civil war in Gaza and the WB, then, if they are insisting Israel give guns to Fatah to fight Hamas...Palestinian fighting Palestinian. Wouldn't anyone have thought that what passes for our government would have realised, after the absolutely sterling mess they made in Iraq..(now fighting a civil war)...that we shouldn't interfere in this way? I think Fatah will take Israel's guns and join with Hamas secretly, then both will fight Israel. They'd be fools not to. So America has armed both sides, Israeli and Palestinian. And the Iraqi factions as well. How mathematically correct and ridiculous.

I'll explain the arms Israel transfers to Fatah as best as I can...Israel is doing so at the request of the USA, not because she wants to... Israel has obligation to the USA...America is it's main arms supplier...I trush neither Hamas or Fatah...They're two eggs from the same carton...Iraqi Army was disbanded because the U.S. felt they couldn't be trusted by America. A really big mistake, they're loyal to whoever pays them, and at times that too is very questionable, the other fellow might pay them a bit more..

...Israel shouldn't give arms and ammo to Fatah,who are currently asking Israel for it, to use "against Hamas"...what is to stop them doing the exact same thing the Iraqis did,just keep the guns and use them for their own purposes?Or even worse, taking the guns from Israel and secretly joining up with Hamas behind Israel's back,so to speak?Mind you, they'd be fools not to do that,so we should hope that Israel will not give them anything.I agree we should not be in Iraq and never should have been;the Taliban is back in Afghanistan,bin Laden's still breathing,and what do we have to show for it?The death of Saddam,who,it turns out, was the only person capable of ruling Iraq..we can't do it; what idiot disbanded the Iraqi army? How could our government not see that the Iraqi army, once disbanded, would go home and join factions?My second question..I think you want the settlements to stay because of what happened in the past,while I see them as an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians..

The U.S., in my opinion shouldn't have gone into Iraq before the eliminated the Taliban in Afghanistan..It put too much strain on the American armed forces..The U.S. doesn't have the same amount of men under arms that it had during the Second World War, The Korean Police Action, or in Vietnam...Iraq is composed of tribes and clans, they don't know what a central government is supposed to do...Sadamm Hussein did have a central government, which gave him overall control..The U.S. destroyed that centralization, a big mistake..Now they've taken their guns home for future use against hostile clans and tribes.. As for your second question...Fortunately, I'm no longer in a position that would force me to make that decision or having to consider it...

the American government didn't know that the Iraqis have no allegiance to a central government and would just take off with the guns when they felt like it? Because if so, how could we be so badly informed? It only goes to show even more that we have no business in Iraq at all and can do no good by being there... Reference something else you wrote: if you were still in the IDF would you really refuse an order to remove settlers from the WB, or even a bit of it, like that Hebron market?

No, it's not in Israel, it's fairly local.. The AK's were intended for the Iraqi forces the Americans were attempting to train to police Iraq...Iraqi's as such, are tribal, have no allegiance to a central government..When they became disenchanted with their endeavors, they simply took the guns they were issed and went home..Retaining the weapons for future use against the enemies...Don't forget Shia & Sunni have been killing each other for 1400 years.. Both have taken turns killing each other and the Kurds...Guns make them happy, it's a status symbol..

As regards the prospective enterprise...um, if it isn't a personal question (and if it you'll tell me in a moment)..it doesn't involve moving back to Israel, by any chance? I hope not because it's just too dangerous. Dr. David Gross is going to Sderot because Kassams are falling there and he says that a Jew's place is in Israel, and he's a doctor and wants to help. I was appalled by this but even his son Yoni in New York says he can't tell his dad not to go. I did but it makes no difference.. Did you see that the military in Iraq can't account for thousands of AK47s that have been given out? Not the military's fault, though; some person at the top must be responsible. Like Bush. I think. Regards

My wife and I wanted to review a prospective enterprise..Took time off to see what it was all about...Still thinking..

Wprds are extension of what's is the heart and mind..People work themselves into a state of mind that they will put into actions...Zyklon B was used in previous times, it's up-dated version can be readily assembled or bought ready made...It is said, "Beauth is in the eye of the beholder", hate is in the expressions of he who say's it...

"A person is known by the associations they make and the friends they have" Very true. And by the influence, for good or bad, that others can have on them. Or not have, in the case of Jew-haters. Obviously there, no influence for good has had any effect on them. PS: Haven't seen you posting for a few days; have you been away?! Regards

I agree that a person's words will state his intentions and thoughts. But people can sometimes change their minds..while never a "hater of Jews", I was a critic of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians; by extension, a critic of Israel. But my perception of this subject has been altered a great deal; I definitely see things differently now. Of you and me, you are the Jew, and can therefore recognise Jew hating when you see it, while I often cannot, but, Ben..cans of Zyklon B through the tubes into the showers? Do you think that many people we know through Talkbacks would do that if they could? Because that is an extremely serious matter.. Regards

A person is known by the associations they make and the friends they have.

You don't have to use the word "HATE" as such. A persons expressions and thoughts, even his facial expression can express it...JB's very words and denials, falsification of facts, clearly state his intentions and thoughts.. It's like a trial, you hear the evidence, and reach a conclusion...JB is a Jew Hater of the worst kind..I truly feel if he could, he would personally throw the cans of ZYKLON B through the roof tubes of the showers...He never expresses any concerns regarding the situation of his own Aborigines, who are under his very nose...His thoughts and efforts are soley concentrated on hating Jews...

Sorry, but that kind of ignorant reply seems par for the course: 1) JB continues to lie in order to make Israel be at at fault for everything. 2) I've asked him to accept the fully documented history of Arab declarations of war against Israel's existence, he refuses 3) He won't call for Arabs to unconditionally end the wars they unconditionally began 4) He won't clearly call for the hostages, taken and held in direct violation of the VC, be released 5) He calls Israel's offers to negotiate "non-negotiation" while the Arabs saying "take it or leave it" is negotiation in his eyes. He keeps going on. That you ignore that, and claim he must type "I hate Israel" to prove he's antisemitic only shows one thing: You are antisemitic. Oh, yeah, the fact that you just whine, while not addressing my points, is further proof. Until you quit denying the truth, the truth won't change.

...as you claim in #399. Never once has he stated that he "hates" Israel. Why, oh why, can't you debtate your points without dragging in the "hate", "anti-semitism" load of old rubbish?

"State Succession is International Customary Law", notice he makes that lie again, ignoring, of course, the massive body of int'l custom where: 1) The USSC said Tories didn't have a RoR 2) No others of the 50 million refugees 45-50 have a RoR 3) Bangaleshi & Vietnamese from the 70s have none. And JB keeps running from accepting a conference to compensate all refugees from the Arab-Israeli conference, because that would be fair to Jews. "land" & "people", I refer him, yet again, to 1-3 above. He continues, as the Hague Court did on the fence, to say "I hate Israel because 'A' is true; and I hate Israel because 'A' isn't true." He flips as often as needed to support his hatred.

"David Teich parses the minutae" while he focuses on the difference between "suspect" and "kicked out" to avoid admitting the the AL takes its DoW seriously and punished Egypt for making peace. His idiotic hypocrisy is truly amusing. "lways said Israelis unilateral declaration was perfectly legal", ignoring that it wouldn't have been legal w/o UNR181, with the Pals rejected. "Israel was the successor state" yet he still won't state what that means. As the UN article I linked said, that means squat, the successor can choose to ignore any previous laws with which it disagrees (like those barring saving Jews while having open immigration for Arabs...). He can't admit the Pals made their declaration, and it was that they didn't want a nation. "IRRELEVENT" because all knowing and glorious JB claims so! They could have sworn allegiance to Israel and came back, and tens of thousands did, but they were "UNWILLING". JB again thinks facts are irrelevant if they disagree w/his fantasy.

Still, David's lack of practice at basic research explains why he gets this wrong: "So, which "law" to use support and use? Specify. For instance, the UN gives just a few options in http://www.unep.org/DEC/OnLineManual/Compliance/Resource/tabid/594/Default.aspx." No, because that deals with State Succession and compliance with TREATY OBLIGATIONS. So sorry, but the assumption of citizenship and nationality during State Succession is International Customary Law, David, not treaty law, and so compliance is not an issue; International Customary Law is UNIVERSAL, and it is BINDING, and therefore it requires neither assent nor ratification. You succeed another state then you gain sovereignty of both the LAND and the PEOPLE living on that LAND. Absolutely none of THAT is treaty law, David, and if you want to argue that it doesn't apply to the PEOPLE then I'll argue straight back that it doesn't then apply to the LAND either.

Guess it helps him avoid the substantive issues DT: "according to the int`l law (that would be UNR181) that allowed it and in whose context Israel did so. Conveniently ignoring that one..." I have always said Israelis unilateral declaration was perfectly legal, David. That does not affect the point of my post; Israel was the successor state of the Mandate IN THE AREAS UNDER ITS CONTROL and so the Laws of State Succession applied in those areas. DT: "and you ignore that "unwilling" is in that. Dropped it like a hot potato" That is because it is IRRELEVENT to this issue, ya' dummy; the people clammering for a Right of Return are NOT going to be people who fear returning. Talk about an absurdist argument!!! DT: "Who mentioned ejection?" Oh, please. Spare me. I UNDERSTAND that Israelis need to pretend they didn't eject these people; it helps the zionists sleep at night, after all...but don't try foisting your fantasies on me, thanks.

...Philistine doesn't seem to have popped his head up again for a reply! Regards

"you eject an entire family from a home" The refugees, like those elsewhere in the world were an amalgam, some evicted by Jews, some by the Arab armies, and some just fled. Those who can prove eviction deserve compensation, as do the 800k Jewish refugees from Arab lands created by the same Arab war, but you won't discuss a conference to do that. "I promise to be good". Why should a nation let in people dedicated to its destruction? "The Arabs inside the Mandate were AS MUCH the responsibility of the UN GA as were the Jews." The responsibility was the Brits', and they handed it to the UN, not the LoN. Meanwhile, the UN had a responsibility to all the people, both Jews and Arabs, but decided to only help the Arabs. Oh, yeah, and still ignoring the USSC, 50 million other refugees, '45-50, and the millions since, so you can treat the Arabs differently solely because the single Jewish majority nation is involved. Yet the puppy barks about "smug, pontificating nitwit". Still funny!

"So you are denying...", nope, puppy, I just want you to prove it applies. You claim that it was legal and proper for the USSR to put forward a puppet govt in Poland even though the govt in exile didn't agree, and I'm curious what fantasies you'll use now. So, which "law" to use support and use? Specify. For instance, the UN gives just a few options in http://www.unep.org/DEC/OnLineManual/Compliance/Resource/tabid/594/Default.aspx. "Israel declared itself unilaterally" according to the int'l law (that would be UNR181) that allowed it and in whose context Israel did so. Conveniently ignoring that one... "It does not..." Gosh, I keep forgetting, JB is the font of all wisdom, who am I to use generally accepted sources to contradict his fantasies? "The UN definition of a refugee is what counts", and you ignore that "unwilling" is in that. Dropped it like a hot potato, the way you treat most facts. "you eject an entire family from a home" Who mentioned ejection? The refugees, like thos

David (Jew) slew Goliath (Philistine) with a stone from a slingshot. I (s Jew) did the same to Philistine with a computer..

DT: "Nope, Israel repatriated 70k when they promised to pledge loyalty to Israel" So, you eject an entire family from a home. It is illegal for you to do so, but you do it anyway. You refuse to allow them back in, except for one little girl who says "I promise to be good". There, David. Have you fulfilled your obligation under the law, or have you just attempted a cheap PR trick? DT: "BTW: When did the LoN deal with the PA refugees?" The LoN disolved post-WW2, and all of its rights, obligations and responsibilities were handed to the UN GA. The Arabs inside the Mandate were AS MUCH the responsibility of the UN GA as were the Jews. The Jews kicked the Arabs out, David, and the UN GA understood that, even if you don't. Smug, pontificating nitwit.

DT: "1) w/o any links or context" I see, David. So you are denying that there is such a thing as the "Law of State Succession"? DT: "2) ignoring the Pal Arab rejected succession & a State" Whacko! And, so? Israel declared itself unilaterally. It's declaration stated that it was the successor state to the Mandate in the areas within its control. The Law of State Succession therefore applied to her: ALL of the Mandate citizens living within the areas within its control automatically became her citizens, and she was NOT allowed to exclude some - making them stateless - simply because it doesn't like them. If ya' claim the land, David, then the people come with it. DT: "www.dictionary.com" Spare me, please. Fleeing a region makes someone a "displaced person". It does not make them a "refugee". Being unable to return makes them a refugee. The UN definition of a refugee is what counts, David.

...perhaps he's been Taken Up...you know that evangelical christian invention they call The Rapture, when all the good people (evangelical christians, naturally) get sort of wafted up to heaven, leaving the rest of us unbelievers behind... This one is almost as good as the 72 Virgins...maybe not as exciting to the recipients, but every bit as fanciful! Regards

You bragged about your heritage..I made but a simple request..Is it really so difficult to substantiate your claims?..You were so adamant in your demands..Prove them!!!

I hope that you went back to the original post of KUTW, who simplisticly stated that the ARABS were the cause of the Crusades. I pointed out that it was not until the Seljuks took the region that problems began for the Christian pilgrims. As for dhimmitude, how did the Christians treat Jews and Moslems? All the Sefarditas were forced to convert or leave in 1492. Then in 1500, the Muslims were given the same choice. But even after conversion, the Jews and Muslims were victims of the Spanish Inquisition. So let us include everyone in the persecution of other religions, not just a certain group selected for a certain agenda.

Not me nor my honesty should be put into question, that is getting ad hominem. If you read about the Crusades, you will find that the problem with Christian pilgrims started with the Seljuk conquest. Of course there were mad and evil caliphs, like al-Hakim, who, among other things, ordered all the dogs of Egypt slaughtered. He was totally insane, which did not stop the Druze from making him their spiritual leader. Stop being so smug, I cannot post the entire history of Arabs and Turks and Crusades on one post. Your derision of my knowledge simply shows your desperation to avoid addressing the issue which I pointed out, namely, that it was not the Arabs that caused the problem which precipitated the Crusades but the Seljuk Turks. I could also go on about all the Arabs who respected Christians and Jews, or dwell on the tragedy of the Jews, who had somehow managed to survive in Jerusalem under Muslim rule but who were all brutally slaughtered by the Christians in the 1st Crusade.

A start is "Islam and Dhimmitude". It clearly started shortly after the Arab jihad, with slowly tightening dhimmi laws for Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims. One thing that you handily ignore is what happened in 1009. Caliph al-Hakim (Arab), ordered the destruction of all churches and synagogues in the area he controlled: The ME and North Africa. Later, for enormous blackmail money, the structures were allowed to be rebuilt. That's why the current Church of the Sepluchre, Church of the Resurrection and other key Christian churches throughout the region are not the originals, because Arabs destroyed them. The Hadiths, put together by Arabs, not Turks, formalized dhimmi laws. Hala, you need to either study harder or be a bit more honest.

Or else he'd have nothing to post... "Law of State Succession", as usual: 1) w/o any links or context 2) ignoring the Pal Arab rejected succession & a State "Where is the first?" On 80% of the Mandate, w/a "Pal" majority, ruled by foreign Hashemites. JB will keep ignoring it. "Being unable to return makes them a refugee." www.dictionary.com "a person who flees for refuge or safety, esp. to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc." '51 UNCRSR "is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to..." Not just "unable". More importantly he still runs from discussing the other 50M+ 45-50 who are no longer refugees. "It`s Israel`s fault." Nope, Israel repatriated 70k when they promised to pledge loyalty to Israel. "League of Nations and, thru them, the UN GA" The UNHCR makes all their responsibility -- Except the Pals -- who report to UNWRA. Both orgs are under the UNGA's authority. BTW: When did the LoN deal with the PA refugees? Sad, sad puppy.

Rather than your having to ask me for it, I'm sending a link covering my back & forth with Axel...It seems, that if Axel could, he would continue to follow in the footsteps of his elders.. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871159.html

I read what you had to say about the Crusades and added a few facts to it..I certainly didn't detect any sort of admiration for Richard. As for Axel, that'a a long story..At first, he kept on insisting that Kurt Waldheim wasn't a Nazi..I proved it to be otherwise..The world, when they found out what Waldheim had done during WW2, for the most part, rejected him. He was banned from coming into the U.S., and many other countries..I can send you a link, but it makes for a lot of reading of my accusations and Axel's denials and lying. Axel, though he wasn't directly responsible, I can't put the sins of his elders upon him, still continues his train of thought and expressions in the tradtions of his elders... By this time, you must be aware, that any statements I make have documentation to substantiate them.

I don't remember the exact history of all the crusades, as you asked me, or how many thousands of people were killed, but in my original post did you detect any hint of admiration for Richard's crusade? You did not, because there wasn't any. As for Axel, and the terrible fate of your relatives; some of my mother's family were killed in the German bombing blitz on London during WW2. I don't blame Axel for this; the war was over many years ago. What happens now, in 2007, is what is important.

Richard may have failed, but in so doing, he wiped out the inhabitants of Jerusalem and thousands of other inhabitants of the land. I wonder if your history taught you that when the crusaders were crossing Europe they had battles with many of the Kingdoms they traversed..They pillaged and robbed to feed themselves and their followers, stealing from their fellow Christian's all the while.

Not merely a "hateful zionist", just one that despises those that killed my relatives and their defenders..Waldheim, didn't just conceal conceal his past, he actively participated in the destruction of the Jews..Formulated the orders and passed them on to the SS detachments responsible for following his orders. Axel is mad because I proved that Waldheim wasn't the innocent that Axel was trying to foist off and that Axel was lying about Waldheim...When Waldheim was exposed for the Nazi he was, he was banned from the U.S. and most countries refused to receive him.. Waldheim's grave can be identified, my relatives went up the chimney in smoke.

They serve an important function. In this case the UN GA wanted an opinion on the legal consequences of that wall, and the answer it got was both unequivical and unanimous: It's against the law, baby! Does the UN GA have to be bound by that opinion? No, but it chose to accept it via a UNGA Resolution i.e. the ICJ opinion also became the UN GA's opinion. That allows the UN GA to inform the UN SC that Israel is acting illegally and should be sanctioned. The USA veto prevents that next step, but the trigger is still there; if the USA ever wearies of automatically applying its veto then Israel is in trouble, because the ICJs advisory ALONE is enough justification for the UN SC to apply sanctions on Israel. The US veto trumps everthing. Always has. But the veto can't REMOVE that opinion; just stymie it for as long as the USA continues to veto anything to do with Israel.

DEVIATES FROM HIS COUNTRIE'S PAST.TYPICAL OF GERMAN THOUGHT PROCESS.GERMANY AIN'T POWERFUL ANYMORE.JUST A REMINDER,IN CASE IT SLIPPED YOUR MIND,HEHEHE!! YOU ACCUSE ME OF NOT GIVING MY ADDRESS?WELL "TOUGH TITI" AS THE ENGLISH SAYING GOES.MOST OF US DO NOT,AND NOTHING SINISTER ABOUT IT. I WILL HOWEVER INFORM YOU THAT THE WEST BANK IS NOT CONCIDERED OCCUPIED,BUT A DISPUTED TERRITORY.GET THEE TO A GOOD BOOK AND LEARN. IF THIS COMES OUT YOU CAN REPLY OR NOT I CARE NOT HERR AXEL "AUF FIDERSEHEN"YOU "BOSH" AXEL GO AND BOTHER OTHER RESPONDENTS IF YOU SO WISH.

DT: "Yes, of a non-State" The Law of State Succession does not require that there be a State, David. It applies even if the predecessor is a Principality, a Duchy, a Free Port, a Dependency... Or a Mandate. It applied to the Syria Mandate, the Mesopotamia Mandate, and all the others... DT: "Meanwhile, JB supports a 2nd Pal State as judenrein as the first." Where is the first? DT: "As JB keeps running away from: They fled." Fleeing does not make a person a refugee, David. Being unable to return makes them a refugee. It's not THEIR fault they can't return. It's Israel's fault. David, quote all the other examples you want; NONE were the responsibility of the League of Nations and, thru them, the UN GA. Israel's actions conflicted with an obligation the UN GA owed to those Arabs, and the UN GA simply refuses to forget about it. Or them. Hence the UNRWA. Hence the condemnation of Israel. Hence the need for Israel to LET THEM BACK.

No disrespect to you, but did you not watch the special on Dateline/20/20 about how millions of iraqis have fled to Syria. women that have no ways of making money except for selling themselves? Do not act like Israel OWNS Palestine... the last time i checked its still called the palestinian terriories and not israeli territories. Isn't it funny how Israel controls who is let in or out of SOMEONE ELSE's country. Its like Canada telling Israel "you cant have so and so in your country.I won't allow it." and to that comment on how Israel is their only hope.this is the same country that has displaced MILLIONS OF PAlestinian and theyre gonna accept Sudani immigrants. yeah-I'M SURE. I don't know if your filled in on how the PALESTNIAN ARABS (let me emhpasize the key word ARABS) are being treated right now by Israel, airstrikes checkpoints beatings things you don't see in t.v. What a safe haven. BUT i have to agree w/ you about the 22 arab countries they are a disgrace.

So, in the case of the wall, the UN brought it before the ICJ, seeing as how Israel is not a participant? Not only that, but actually, it has no teeth to it whatever, if it is not binding, so essentially, it's all but pointless? What a waste of time, then, Johnboy.

CJK: "You really exhaust me with this nonsense." And a very revealing comment this is. Cipora, you think my argument a nonsense; the very idea that these refugees have any right to return is foolishness of the highest order, too silly for words... There is, of course, a fly in your ointment; no matter how much you or Israel attempt to wish this issue away it simply will not disappear, continuing to fester away for year after year since 1949. How odd, hey? It must be a constant source of puzzlement to you that this issue hasn't sunk without trace, and done so many long decades ago.... Here's a thought, Cipora; maybe this issue has continued to burn away for 60-odd years precisely because YOUR blase dismissal of it as "a nonsense" is WRONG. Maybe it has continued to burn away because my arguments have MERIT, and you are just too blinkered to see that. What a horrid thought, hey?

JES: "What is different in the case of Palestinian case is that these people not only continue to be refugees, but their descendents are also defined as stateless refugees under the loophole in the UN Convention." Such an odd observation; it ain't no "loophole", JES, because the UN GA knew exactly what it was doing, even if neither you nor Israel agree with it. It is a decision made by the UN GA to make sure that Israel CAN'T ESCAPE its obligations by the simply stonewalling until all the original 1949 refugees are dead. Why? Because the UN GA inherited an obligation towards ALL Palestinians when it inherited the Mandates from the League of Nations. The JEWISH Palestinians dudded a vast number of the ARAB Palestinians on the land under their control '46-'49, JES, and the UN GA has been determined ever since not to let them get away with that. Good On Them.

i read a saying once... goes something like: "you can bore all of the people some of the time... and some of the people all the time... but you don't want to bore all of the people... all of the time!" something like that... cheers!

You need to understand something important about the ICJ; it can hold two types of hearings into matters of international law 1) When two states have a dispute they can both agree to bring it before the ICJ as a "contentious issue". Both agree to be bound by the judgement of the court, and can not (in theory, but in practice the USA has) then "opt out" once the case goes against it. 2) When the UN or one of its principal organs needs an unambigious ruling on what the status of international law is regarding Some Matter then it can seek an Advisory Opinion of the ICJ. That opinion can ONLY be requested by the UN i.e. it can NOT be requested by a state. That opinion is an "advisory" - a statement by the court on what Int'l Law says about Something, and as such is not binding on the organization that requests it (the UN, remember) nor is it binding on any state adversely mentioned in that advisory.

You suggested that Axel's grandparents murdered some of your relatives. This I find to be an indication of the "balance" of your mind when it comes to reality. Maybe you could have a look at a neighbour of yours: one Solomon Morel and when you have, put up a post regarding who might have murdered a relative of Axels'! "In 1998, an extradition request for Morel was rejected by Israel. A reply sent to the Polish Justice Ministry from Israeli authorities said that Israel would not extradite Mr Morel as the statute of limitations had EXPIRED on war crimes".

Thanks for the information about Kurt Waldheim...I don't see what he has to do with this Talkback, though; what reason was there for his name to be brought up? Oh well... People concealing details of Nazi pasts has happened here; there was a Polish archbishop of the Catholic church a few years ago who was discovered to have been hiding the same sort of past; he was discovered by means of a single postcard he'd written in the 1940s. But any urination is somewhat excessive! (quoting your post)

Thanks for your post and the information about the ICJ. As I said before, obviously I was wrong in what I'd originally thought about the ICJ and even the wall/fence. I do remember reading about it being re-routed at one point though so as not to cut off Palestinians from their farmlands. Regards, Silvienne

Play nice with the Fatah but don't give them much now. Weaken Hamas by blockading Gaza by sea. Let Egypt block the other boarders. Let no weapons in or out. Next entice/force Fatah to take back the GAZA strip before Israel deals further with them. Under no circumstances should the west bank be given out. PA Self governed for now but that is all. Israel does not need another front to the west to deal with. As for the Syrians Israel should never give back any land especially the Golan. Give them money / trade agreements. That should be enough to make things friendlier. Egypt is less friendly than Jordan it seems and no land was given to Jordan. Intresting. So much for the theory of land for peace. Trade and good releations are a much better policy. learn from history!

"Who is Kurt, anyway?" Hi, This is Kurt Waldheim, the recently deceased former secretary general of the UN and Austrian president. Waldheim got himself in trouble by concealing details of his nazi past during WWII. ben jabo therefore voiced his desire to urinate on Waldheim's grave. Since I disagreed, he decided to address me as a follower of Waldheim, respectively as an admirer of the nazi past. You see, nothing special, just the typical hateful Zionist as ben jabo is commonly known.

They were Arabs that were conscripted by the Iraqi's and forcibly moved to Iraq...Nakba had nothing to do with it, blame the Iraqi Army.

I seem to have got myself into the position of defending your right to post here and being the recipient of all the resultant abuse! No-one else apparently agrees with me enough to post it. The obnoxious Paul Harris tells me that your comments deserve a "busted nose" (and I quote from his post) but he obviously doesn't have the nerve to post that remark directly to you. Well, next time I'll mind my own business! After all, the only people who ever defend me are Eric (often) and Johnboy (a bit)!! Regards

I don't know what happened after Mohammed's death, gotta admit it, but the Crusades were launched for exactly the purpose you say, to free the Holy Land from the Muslims, then called the Saracens. I know this because its taught as history in England because Richard the First led a crusade in 1160s. And failed miserably, I might add. Regards

The ICJ has no jurisdiction over any sovereign state that refuses to submit to its jurisdiction. That is the meaning and importance of sovereignty. Furthermore, as I had said, advisory opinions are consultitave in nature. You should also realize that Israel's highest court is not an arm of the government. Just as the US SC, they might rule against government positions. Indeed, the fence has been rerouted because of such a ruling. You should also keep in mind, as I had said in my earlier post to you, that most of the major powers were opposed to the very idea of the ICJ issuing a ruling in this matter. The EU, Russia, US, UK, etc...all thought that the question of the fence is one for political solution. Regards.

I have just written a long post to Sarah expressing my deep sympathy for the loss of her family. She directed my attention to a post that described it. While I am totally sincere, I must say the same to you as I said to her: you don't know anything about Axel's history. Many Germans tried to speak out against the Nazis and were murdered. Axel might be a German Jew, or his family might have been killed by the Nazis. I am only saying that on the strength of a place name in a response "Germany", it's wrong to attack the person immediately without knowing anything about them. Also, KUTW, free speech is what makes us free; the dead Germans who tried opposing Hitler before the war prove that much to us. As long as nothing hateful is posted, everyone has the right to post here. That is all I'm saying, again, with my sympathy to Sarah's family.

Paul, in your post to me you said that Axel's comment deserved a "busted nose" (and I quote). Don't you think that's a rather inappropriate comment to be making here in Talkback? Also, I notice you did not post this to Axel himself, but to me, because I defended Axel's right to post here. Any reason for this? Could it be cowardice...are you afraid of Axel's possible reply? It certainly appears that way. Otherwise, you'd have told him about the "busted nose", now wouldn't you?

...for this information on the ICJ. Johnboy has just been telling me the same thing, that Israel has declared that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over its decisions. I have been sadly mistaken in the past; I thought the ICJ issued rulings aside from and apart from the wishes of the country concerned, you see what I mean? Thanks for explaining this at length; I'm embarrassed I ever mentioned the ICJ without first knowing that it has no jurisdiction over Israel. Of course I understand why the Arab League wanted the ruling. Actually the Wall is such a difficult subject to advise on that the European countries were right to oppose the ICJ ruling. As you say, the Wall enters into the peace process and as such must be handled carefully. Regards

With regards to the ICJ and Israel's "opting out" of its rulings, does this mean that America, or England, or any country at all, can or could do the exact same thing? Regards

I have now read your post that you directed me to. You have my utmost sympathy over the loss of your family, and I am completely sincere when I say that. But, don't you see, that nowadays, we mustn't stifle dissent anywhere? Before the war, in Nazi Germany, isn't it true that some Germans tried to speak out against the Nazis, and were imprisoned and killed? We need to have free speech to keep us a free and safe democracy. Of course, I do not mean hate speech, but Axel's post wasn't hateful, just critical. This is a Jewish forum, but wouldn't it be better not to have the Holocaust always enter into it? Sarah, we're talking about Israel and the Jews today. No-one will or can ever forget the Holocaust, but my point was, you don't know Axel's past; he could be a German Jew, or his family could have died fighting the Nazis. When you post to him or anyone else saying they have no right here that threatens the freedom of all of us. I hope you agree with some part of my post. Regards

Okay then, if the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Israel, then it might as well stop giving rulings about it. As you say, the UN has America on the veto button all the time. How can the Israeli High Court give any viable rulings on Israeli matters like the Wall? Proper waste of time all around...still, thanks for letting me know about the lack of jurisdiction! Regards

Who is Kurt, anyway? Regards

Now, rather than waste everyone's time by calling me "sweetie", as you did in another post, isn't it better to address me as you did in this one, directing me to your post which explains things? I'll go and read it immediately, now that you've asked politely without any endearments added! Regards

And the point of the comment that I cannot deny that those who speak Arabic are Arabs? I never did that in #340. That post explains that the Crusades were set off by the TURKISH conquest of Palestine. As long as the Arabs were in control, Christian pilgrims were allowed. The Turks prohibited free access to the shrines by their harshness. Hence the reason for preaching the Crusades. By the way, Belgians, Quebecois, Luxembourgians and other nations speak French, but they are not French. Mexicans speak Spanish but they are not Spaniards. Many peoples speak Arabic but they are not all Saudi Arabians. Tell a Lebanese Maronite (who also speaks Arabic) that s/he is an Arab and see what will happen.

The UN retains UNRWA for a variety of reasons. One is the pressure brought by the Arab states, and particularly the host countries, who, like Lebanon and Jordan have reiterated their opposition to integrating these populations due to "delicate" ethnic or economic balances. UNRWA is also a classic "pork barrel", not only providing high-level, well-paying jobs for UN functionaries, but also serving as the largest employer in the territories.

...would most likely result in the displacement hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Israelis, many born of parents born on that land. This, of course, does not preclude them from reaching an agreement on fair compensation for lost property. There is no contradiction in my statements. The preferred approach to refugees, as seen in the Convention, is repatriation, in the minority of cases where this is possible, but, in most cases, attrition of the refugee population by resettlement, rehabilitation and naturalization in host countries. The contradiction lies in the special case for Palestinians and UNRWA which, in effect, has increased the refugee population from fewer than a million to over three million over the past 60 years.

A entitlement of repatriation? Sure. But in point of fact, the majority of refugees are not repatriated. What is different in the case of Palestinian case is that these people not only continue to be refugees, but their descendents are also defined as stateless refugees under the loophole in the UN Convention. As the Convention states: "When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention." Does their "entitlement" cease? No. But the likelihood of repatriation does not increase, in light of the experiences of other refugee communities, particularly given the demand to return exactly to their previous homes (which no longer exist) and, with the passage of 60 years, the fact that such mass repatriation...

Keep posting,Johnboy!:)

Leo Trotzki, Jakob Swerdlow, Grigori Sinowjew, Lew Kamenew, Feliks Dzierzynski, Mojsche Uritzki - just a few names. Find out who they were and what they did - and then dig yourself in again in your self-delusion that a certain race or people is eo ipso immune from abuse of power, and that the simplistic equation Jew = victim applies universally.

JES: "Israel does not claim the West Bank or Gaza" And I don't claim that anyone who lived in WB/Gaza between '46-'49 (or their descendents) are entitled to RoR. JES: "That is why the territories have been officially referred to as 'administered'. " "OFFICIALLY REFERRED TO" by whom? JES: "You stated that Israel "refused to allow those who fled to return". This is patently untrue, as I pointed out." Masterfull hairsplitting, JES. So if I illegally kick a family out a house, but allowed one member only to return, then I am fulfilling my obligations? JES: "Whether or not the "Commissioners" turned the offer down or not is quite irrelevant." Israel's legal obligation was to allow ALL refugees to return. The POLITICAL solution under 194 restricted that, and even that was not good enough for Israel. The Commissioners were quite right to point that out.

You cannot deny Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula and, from there, they took to submit other lands. Neither cannot you deny the pals speak Arabic because they are Arabs.

JES: "They were resettled in Iraq under Iraqi, not UNRWA, protection." Being under UNRWA "protection" relates to the UNRWA provision of aid and support to the refugees within their reach. That does not affect their entitlement to repatriation, which is shared by ALL the refugees ejected by the Jews between '46-'49. You really do need to read the UNRWA's own FAQ. JES: "The UN ignores "me" only in that it maintains UNRWA to provide a basis for keeping Palestinians refugees and their descendants in political limbo." An odd statement, JES, coz then you contradict yourself immediately: JES: "Again, read the Convention, the second that UNRWA ceases to exist, the refugess are classified under the Convention, and there is no inheritance of refugee status by subsequent generations." So the UN retains the UNRWA to ensure their entitlement to repatriation under Res 194 remains intact, not to keep them in limbo. It is ISRAEL who is keeping them in limbo, JES.

CJK: "Reallly, John, the Mandate was not a state, but a Mandate." JB: "They had citizenship". Yes, of a non-State, controlled by the British Military Govt, then the British Civil Govt for Palestine, not by the "citizens". "Israel could not deny citizenship to the Arabs living on its territory simply because they were not Jews." And it didn't, that's why it still has a 17% Arab population. Meanwhile, JB supports a 2nd Pal State as judenrein as the first. "So why could they deny citizenship to Arabs who were living on that very same territory but who had fled?" As JB keeps running away from: They fled. As the USSC said, in a case where Tories who fled to Canada complained about their property being seized, they fled and lost their rights under the new State's laws. 50 million refugees '45-50, all lost citizenship and were absorbed by host countries. Millions who fled Bangladesh in the early '70s had the same fate. It goes on. Only with Israel does JB demand differently

Where someone has actually been born, has lived, that is home. May they all return home, inshallah.

"I`ll tell you who gave me the authority and I can give you my credentials. My two aunts (my father`s sisters and their families - husbands and children)who were murdered by your parents/grandparents gave me the authority to tell you to exactly what you, a German, can or cannot say in a Jewish Israeli newspaper. Are these credentials enough for you?" Not at all. Modern civilization assumes that rights are individually, not collectively assigned. YOU assume that there is a collective victimhood (all Jews) and a collective culpability (all Germans), which even inherits across generations. You did not offer credentials, you offered arrogance.

"The Crusades were launched because the Arabs had invaded the holy sites." According to the credible historical sources. Christian pilgrims were mostly unimpeded from visiting the sacred sites in Arab dominated Palestine. It was with the Seljuk Turk conquest in 1071 that Christians were met with hostility, due to the Turks' divergent interpretation of Islam. That is why the Crusades were first preached circa 1096.

CJK: "Reallly, John, the Mandate was not a state, but a Mandate." The people who lived in the Mandate for Palestine were not non-citizens, Cipora. They had citizenship, and that transferred when Israel succeeded the Mandate in the land under its control. It happened with Jordan too, Cipora. The principle was the same; citizenship transferred automatically when those states succeeded the Mandate and assumed sovereignty over that land. CJK: "Nor is Israel an exclusively Jewish state." My point exactly. Israel could not deny citizenship to the Arabs living on its territory simply because they were not Jews. So why could they deny citizenship to Arabs who were living on that very same territory but who had fled? Because they had fled? Or because Israel didn't WANT to give them citizenship? It is the latter, Cipora, because there is no principle of Intl Law that allows Israel to deny citizenship based on the former.

"And now you are complaining about Israel not accepting Iraqis into the country?" Seems you can't even ask without distorting the truth. Nobody asked that Israel accept Iraqi refugees. The point is that even admitting a minuscule number into Westbank to reunite with their relatives causes Zionists to go through the roof. "seeing as Jordan is more than twice the size of Israel and most of its population is Palestinian anyway- wouldn`t that be a better option?" Jordan supports around 700.000 Iraqi refugees. That should answer your question. "Just today Israel ccordinated the return of stranded Gazans back to their homes (their lders certainly didn`t care much" The Rafah crossing is being closed by Egypt and Israel while Hamas demands it be opened. I do not sympathize with Hamas, but you can't hardly blame them that Gaza is blocked by Israel and Egypt.

Read your statements, to which I responded, again. Israel does not claim the West Bank or Gaza, and this has never been on any official agenda. That is why the territories have been officially referred to as "administered". You stated that Israel "refused to allow those who fled to return". This is patently untrue, as I pointed out. Whether or not the "Commissioners" turned the offer down or not is quite irrelevant. The Arab delegates, including the Palestinians, refused to discuss the offer because it was predicated on recognizing the State of Israel (or "Zionist Entity", as they referred to it). I know you can't stand being wrong, but you are.

CJK: "I am pleased that you have finally conceded the legal point." I have never, ever argued that particular point, Cipora, and you mistake me for others that did and still do. CJK: "all Abba Eban promised was to negotiate with the neighbours about solving the issue." And this squares, well, how, exactly, with Israel's refusal to even consider RoR?

They were resettled in Iraq under Iraqi, not UNRWA, protection. Read the Convention again. The UN ignores "me" only in that it maintains UNRWA to provide a basis for keeping Palestinians refugees and their descendants in political limbo. Again, read the Convention, the second that UNRWA ceases to exist, the refugess are classified under the Convention, and there is no inheritance of refugee status by subsequent generations.

JES: "And no one - not even Israel - recognizes either the West Bank or Gaza as being part of Israel. So why should the populations of these territories be granted Israeli citizenship?" You are being dishonest to suggest this has ever been on the agenda. Residency inside the WB/Gaza AFTER 1949 does not make any Arab eligible for RoR, as you well know. It is their residency INSIDE what is now Israel between '46-'49 that matters. JES: "Israel did allow some 10% of the refugees to return during the first three years following the armistice and granted them citizenship" The very fact of their RETURN made their citizenship automatic, JES. JES: "Israel also did offer to repatriate another 100,000 refugees at Lausanne. The offer was turned down by the Arab representatives on the Conciliation Commission." Also turned down by the COMMISSIONERS, who pointed out that this was insufficient under Res 194.

JES: "As the last paragraph in the article points out, these refugees were allowed into Iraq under Iraqi protection." That last paragraph makes clear that these people were residents of Haifa, and that clearly meakes them residents of land where the State of Israel succeeded the Mandate for Palestine. The nature of their forcible conscription into the Iraqi military does not affect that status, and the law of state succession means they were automatically Israeli citizens. JES: "Further, refugee status only applies to those who actually fled Palestine - not to their descendants." So sorry JES, but the UN insists on continuing to ignore you. Such a bummer, hey?

Reallly, John, the Mandate was not a state, but a Mandate. The principle of state succession does not apply. Nor is Israel an exclusively Jewish state. All people who were living within Israel at the time of independence received citizenship, as you know only too well. How, otherwise would there be 20% Muslim population? You really exhaust me with this nonsense.

All right. I am pleased that you have finally conceded the legal point. I know that it is very difficult to concede a point, so you deserve my respect. As for the principle: all Abba Eban promised was to negotiate with the neighbours about solving the issue. This issue, like some of the others, must be solved through negotiations.

"East Jerusalem is not accepted by anyone as being part of Israel, Jeff, so you are comparing apples with oranges; the events of 1947-49 are not the same as those of 1967." And no one - not even Israel - recognizes either the West Bank or Gaza as being part of Israel. So why should the populations of these territories be granted Israeli citizenship? "All the Arabs inside the GL automatically became Israeli citizens in 1949. Israel refused to allow those who fled to return, but on their return they would have automatically become Israeli citizens." Not exactly. Israel did allow some 10% of the refugees to return during the first three years following the armistice and granted them citizenship. Israel also did offer to repatriate another 100,000 refugees at Lausanne. The offer was turned down by the Arab representatives on the Conciliation Commission.

CJK: "Israel, as a sovereign state, grants citizenship according to her sovereign laws." So when Ben Gurion stood up and read out the Declaration of Independence did he *SAY* that Israel would be a state entirely and exclusively for Jews, Cipora? Or did he say something else? When Israel sprang into life did it succeed the Mandate for Palestine in the areas under it's control, or did it not? If it did, then all the people who lived on that same land automatically became Israeli citizens. Automatically, Cipora, because "State Succession" had just taken place. You continue to argue from the same false premise as Jeff; that these refugees are "foreigners" that Israel has the right to either accept or reject. That they are attempting to "immigrate". They are not; when Israel gained sovereignty over the land in 1948 then she also gained sovereignty over all the people on that land. That includes all these refugees, wether that is inconvenient to Israel or not.

As the last paragraph in the article points out, these refugees were allowed into Iraq under Iraqi protection. They are, therefore, not subject to the loophole in Chapter 1, Article D of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Further, refugee status only applies to those who actually fled Palestine - not to their descendants. The fact that Iraq took in these people - for generations - and did not take steps to naturalize and integrate them is not Israel's fault.

CJK: "The ICJ stated that the only conditions that can be taken into account for membership in the UN were those included in Article 4 of the Charter" Whacko, Cipora. My argument has nothing to do with that. Israel was present at a hearing of the UN and it was there that the State of Israel gave its word that it would deal with the refugee problem. As far as MY argument is concerned it is completely beside the point what that hearing was ABOUT; a COMMITMENT was made by Israel, and commitments need to be honored i.e. when a state gives its word then it is bound by its word. CJK: "Those were the only two criteria taken into account for admission" Whacko, Cipora. That is a straw man argument. I am arguing about a principle i.e. that when a STATE gives a PUBLIC COMMITMENT then it is bound by it, otherwise it stands condemned as a rogue state whose promises are completely meaningless. Which, in this case, it apparently was - and you appear to applaud that.

Their language is Arabic, which says it all. What if another person says he/she is Hala and evicts you from your home? Don?t you say everyone has the right to call themselves as they like?

These are NOT "Iraqi's of Palestinian Origin" BUT "Palestinians living abroad in Iraq". They're likely to have moved there as a result of the nakba and jewification of their homeland. They all belong home, here in palestine. They're not being granted anything more than their natural long overdue right. They still have family here and belong more to this land than an outdated made-up pretentious religous claim some call aliyah that imported over a million russians into this land.

Palestinians were expelled in mass from Kuwait after the Gulf War because of their collaboration during the Iraqi occupation. I have not noticed a chorus of protest from Arabs about the PAs not being invited back!! Stop the whine,consider yourself and your brethren fortunate that countries such as Canada,USA and others have been generous accepting PAs over the years. Perhaps some expression of appreciation might be appropriate? On the other hand the OTHER Palestinian state Jordan also mass expelled..........

Are you inviting Jews back? Since the PA has the death penalty for anyone selling land to a Jew I presume that you aren't standing with open arms welcoming Jews at the border.

All right, you are forgiven, until next time you forget old world curtesies. I have not finished the Kernshaw two volumes, for lack of time, but I highly recommend it.

and while i understand the security hurdles that are involved... although i'm sure most are those who fled early on and have no part in the insurgency(which is WHY they fled; wanting only peace), i wish that israel wouldshow a bit more leniency...to those who do indeed have family in the west bank... because by allowing these 41...the hope of other's will soar... and it'll be sad indeed if those hopes are ignored... better to have no hopes at all... than to have them take flight... only to descend in a spiraling fall... when they find their quest is denied. and for those who less than enthused... may i suggest walking a ways in THEIR shoes... but that should be a given and always true... before any of us ever voices our views.

http://www.meforum.org/article/652

Howdy, Jeff, thanks for answering. I guess that I can only go with the information that the Philistines became vassals of Sargon of Assyria in 721BC, then just lost their identity as a nation shortly after, since Herodotus cites Cambyses as dealing with "Arabians." We should both get the book "People of the Sea: the Search for the Philistines" by Trude and Moshe Dothan, 1992. Both are Israeli archaeologists who have excavated extensively in the Pentapolis area.

Come on Cipora, a little bit of teasing hasn't done yet any harm to anyone. Compared to some other posts I'm seeing here, I would call myself still a quite polite poster. I am sure, deep in your heart you know that too. I mean VERY deep in your heart...:)

The Crusades were launched because the Arabs had invaded the Holy sites. After Mohammed?s death, the muslims started jihad and went to conquer and submit other lands: the ME, North Africa, etc.

It will be a pleasure for me to do that sweetie. It's right, be careful what you say!

All I know for sure is that some people never grow up. Sorry, but at age forty you should be more mature, and stop making all kinds of unwarranted assumptions. You should also refrain from arguing facts that you know nothing about, such as declaring yourself more knowledgeable than a well known and respected historian. Since I am about a hundred years old, I shall let you in on a little secret: personal traits, such as arrogance, are mostly innate. Most people, unlike wine, do not improve with age.

Why are you unable to understand what a Jew can feel about certain issues? What is wrong with what Sarah says?

Look at my post to Axel #236 and maybe you will understand (I hope you have the ability and sensitivity to understand) my answer to Axel.

Let me help you with your circular argument. Israel, as a sovereign state, grants citizenship according to her sovereign laws.

Stop dissembling. The ICJ stated that the only conditions that can be taken into account for membership in the UN were those included in Article 4 of the Charter. Israel was deemed "peace loving" because she had signed armestice agreements with the Arab neighbours thhat had attacked her in 1948, and because she had set up a democratic government. Those were the only two criteria taken into account for admission.

GABE, all I know for sure is that you and Cipora are definitely a bit older than I am. And that not only because I have to make you "look old" once in a while with my responses. But it's great that you both remain so active during your "senior-holidays". I hope in 35 years, I will be as well preserved as you are today. I think I will leave it with that for the moment....:) Hasta la vista.

The ICJ has jurisdiction only between states that agree to submit their dispute to the Court. Since there is no Palestinian state, there can be no rulings by the Court regarding matters involving issues between Israel and the Palestinians. The matter you are referring to was an advisory opinion, and as such only consultative. Furthermore, twenty three states were opposed to the Court even taking the case on an advisory basis. These countries included all of the major powers, including Russia, the UK, the US, France, Germany, the entire EU, Australia, and others. Those who were in favour of the Court issuing an advisory opinion were almost exclusively members of the Arab League and of the Organization of Islamic Conference. Those opposed argued essentially that the question was not a legal one, but one of politics, and an advisory opinion would hamper the peace process. Furthermore, I believe this was the only case that Israel was ever involved in before the ICJ.

Howdy Hala; How the hell should I know? All that I know is that the Canaanites and the Philistines kind of gradually fizzled out historically somewhere between 1000 B.C. and 1 B.C. Was it due to the four horsemen of the apocalypse (war, pestilence, famine, and death) or was it due to dispersal and absorption into other cultures or both? You need to realize that the Holy Land was being invaded and conquered by every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the region including the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Macedonians, Romans, etc. during that millenium. Your guess is as good as mine. If the Palestinians want to adopt the name of an ancient Greek sea peoples, that is fine with me because nobody else seems to be claiming it.

All you experts on Palestinians, do yourselves a favour and order online (Amazon) the book THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE: A HISTORY by Israeli historian Baruch Kimmerling and American historian Joel S. Migdal, 2003. Great reading and it will give you credible arguments on Palestinians in your future postings.

"You do know that aquiting land as spoils of war is in direct violation of the UN Charter?" Are you condemning Arab wars against Israel with your comment Steve? But tell me Steve.How can you conquer the land in the war if this land is yours?That land belongs historically to Israel,Palestinians living there are just Arab tourists who did not return home from their trip and they have no right to call that land theirs.Even if this land is occupied today by those so called Palestinians they are not the owners.A few years ago I witnessed a childbirth in the bus.Do you think that the newborn baby should become the owner of the bus??? --The Palestinian NATIONAL CHARTER Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian. --The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947...etc. TALK ABOUT PHILISTINE !

Gil, I am going by Herodotos' spelling. The Greek alphabet is very phonetic. The Romans pronounced the PH as P and H, not as F. The current Arab pronunciation is F. These are just the facts on the ground.

Hey, KATH', ever hear of the terms ARABIA FELIX, ARABIA DESERTA and ARABIA PETRAEA? All CLASSICAL Latin names for the region subdued by them. If the name ARAB never existed in classical literature, why should the Romans have used those terms? Ever see the maps of the Roman Empire on the Via Imperiale in Rome? By the way, this is not "HER HISTORY." It is just plain history, the facts, I am not fabricating anything, as is the case with your desperate attempts to falsify history.

You are talking nonsense, Jeff. JN: "Decisions made by the ICJ are necessarily binding on the UN" It was an Advisory Opinion. Such opinions are NOT binding on the UN, any more than they are binding on any state adversely "opined upon" by the ICJ. JN: "they are no longer binding on Israel since 1985 when she advised the Secretary General of the UN that she would not be bound by further rulings of the ICJ" ICJ Advisory Opinions were never, ever, binding on Israel, nor to any other nation, Jeff. Never were. Never could be. Any letter from Israel is simply informing the SG that Israel could not care less what the ICJ "opined" about it. But I love the logic: Jeff is attempting to pretent - against the ICJ's own statutes - that some ICJ Advisory Opinions MUST be obeyed, and some MUST be ignored. And the criteria for judging which opinions are binding and which are not? Why, nothing more than Israeli self-interest, of course!

"Basic human rights and civil liberties" do not include a right to return to land which was.. 3) forfeited by the absentee landlord due to a failure to pay taxes" - JN #159 "Nobody lost his property because of taxes. Just a stupid claim. The Government of Israel sold refugee land to the JNF in early 1949. The state was declared on May 14, 1948. There was no time for even a single tax notice." - Tosefta #217 "your points are ridiculous." - JN #251 (in reply) I couldn't let go of this amazing and beautiful piece of idiocy. We have to keep it in the Museum of False Facts. GOOD WORK, JEFF. YOU ARE THE PHARAOH, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

JN: "What do you take us for--idiots?" I'll let your words speak for themselves, Jeff... JN: "You cannot go back to UNGAR 194 now (which included a lot more than just the refugee issue) and try to maintain that Israel is still bound by it after the Arabs resoundedly rejected it in no uncertain terms." The obligations Israel has towards the refugees is NOT contingent on Res 194's acceptance by Arab nations, because the obligation is NOT owed to those nations, but to those refugees. JN: "By the same token, you cannot claim now that the Green Line is the border" Of course I can. The situation has changed; Israel's sovereignty over territory inside the GL is now UNIVERSALLY recognized, while the lack of Israeli sovereignty over territory outside the GL is likewise UNIVERSALLY recognized. That makes the GL the line demarking the end of "Israel" and the beginning of "non-Israel", and you CAN'T handwave that away no matter how frantically you wave your arms about.

Howdy Silvienne; You asked, "Why does the ICJ keep giving rulings concerning Israel, then? Such as, Israel`s wall, declared illegal by the ICJ?" Because the ICJ is acting in an advisory capacity to the UN upon a request from either the General Assembly or the Security Council, but it is not acting as an arbiter in a dispute between two governments (which requires that both parties to the dispute agree in advance to abide by the ICJ's ruling). Since Israel withdrew her acceptance to abide by compulsory rulings from the ICJ in 1985, she is no longer legally bound by them. Of course, the General Assembly could pass a resolution based on the ICJ's advisory opinion, but UNGARs carry no weight either. Your only hope is to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution (preferably under Chapter 7 and not under Chapter 6) which is going to be difficult to do with the U.S. sitting on the veto button. Otherwise, the ICJ has no juristiction over the case but the Israeli High Court does.

The Philistine were destroyed in the same series of campaigns undertaken by the babylonians in the early 6th century against Judea.The Philistines ceased to be a coherent nation.Rather the survivors were swamped by Tyrians sent their under the persian empire to rebuild those important ports and to manage them.The original Philistine stock and people melted away into the Tyrian population in the persian period.

That is the 2nd post you have ended with,"Ha Ha Ha " How old are you. Last week the Irish Government donated one Billion Euros,(1.4 billion Dollars to the Northern Ireland coffers. More than 40% of northern Ireland,s citizens subscribe to the Orange cause.You see we want peace and just keep on proving it. BTW, part of the Good Friday Agreement gave Citizenship of Southern Ireland to all Citizens of the North, and that includes "Orangemen". Danite each time you open your mouth you cut off the oxygen to your brain and consequently prevent the act of clear thinking. You really are a joke.Why make statements on subjects you know precious little about.

WHEN PEOPLE USING ALIASES AND HIDING BEHIND ALIASES COMMENT ON ISRAEL THEY ARE SAFE. PERHAPS THEY WOULD NOT MAKE SLANDEROUS AND ANTI SEMITIC COMMENT WHEN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY? A BUSTED NOSE WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF SILENCING THEM FOR SOME TIME ! ESPECIALLY THE "JUDEN RAUS" COMMENT OF AXEL

Howdeeee Jeff! You are so smug, man. Get off that high horse. Talk to some "Israeli Arabs" who will give you some insight on how it is to live as a second-class citizen on your own land. And these are Christians whom I know so well, friends for over 35 years. They live in the US, keep homes in their villages in Israel and loathe the occupation. Their villages go back hundreds of years, one of my friends has a Byzanitne church dating from AD 485 in his village, north of Nazareth. My brother-in-law is from Ramallah, he traces his descent to the brothers who founded the city in AD 1500. He hates the British for what they did to is people. You know, that whole Balfour abomination that ruined the self-determination of the indigenous peoples at a time when Jews were but a small minority. Not everything is as you would have it.

Howdy, Jeff. I wish to take advantage of your superior knowledge of Philistine history. Just how did they disappear? Taken by aliens to other planets? All killed off? But the name remains and if the Arabs of that area want to use it, it is their right.

You all miss the point. These people, whatever YOU want to call them (just plain old Arabs), do exist. They want to call themselves Palestinians, Filastin in their language. If some former "Roumanians" decided that they are MOLDAVIANS and got their own country of MOLDAVA, if the people called "little Russians" now have a country recognized as Ukraine, if former Bulgarian Slavs are now citizens of their own country of Macedonia (and they have no connection to the ancient Hellenic tribes who also live in the area), then the Arabs who have been living in the area known as Palestine for millennia also have the right to be called Palestinians. Get over it. It is a fait accompli.

"It WAS Palestinian land, past tense. You`ve forgotten all about the `67 war, when they lost it..." So there's no need for a Palestinian State - right? You do know that aquiting land as spoils of war is in direct violation of the UN Charter?

Howdy Johnboy; A proposed contract or agreement put forward by a third party (the UN) which is accepted by one party (Israel), but which is rejected the other party (the Arabs) is no longer binding or valid for anybody regardless of what one of the parties (Israel) said about it at the time. What do you take us for--idiots? You cannot go back to UNGAR 194 now (which included a lot more than just the refugee issue) and try to maintain that Israel is still bound by it after the Arabs resoundedly rejected it in no uncertain terms. By the same token, you cannot claim now that the Green Line is the border even though Israel wanted it to be so at the Rhodes Conference of 1949 whereas it was the Arabs who stupidly insisted that it be a temporary armistice line instead.

"First, to create a wave of refugees from a war-torn country needs stupid Americans who plunge the said country into chaos and civil war." Jawohl Herr Axel! Well, what are we waiting for? Bring forth the Yankees.

Since when did Israel create war in Iraq? Oh right, I forgot, Jews are behind everything. They have money so they control the media, the banks, even the US. Poor Indonesia has no such money to create wars in other people's countries. Nay! They only have enough resources to bomb the hell outta their own people and some tourists. Goblok.

JN: "The Palestinians have been given ample opportunities to accept Israeli citizenship especially in annexed East Jerusalem" East Jerusalem is not accepted by anyone as being part of Israel, Jeff, so you are comparing apples with oranges; the events of 1947-49 are not the same as those of 1967. JN: "By definition, a Palestinian is not an Israeli citizen" Rubbish. A purely circular argument; Israel refuses to recognize their right to Israeli citizenship, therefore they can not be called "Israelis", therefore Israel can refuse them Israeli citizenship! JN: "Israel offered citizenship to the Arab population in 1948, some accepted and some refused." Utter nonsense: All the Arabs inside the GL automatically became Israeli citizens in 1949. Israel refused to allow those who fled to return, but on their return they would have automatically become Israeli citizens. No "choice" was involved AT ALL, except that Israel "chose" to deny those refugees their rights.

Well that leaves some 14000000 others.I wonder how ireland would react if they were orangemen from the north in need of your wonderfull countries help.HA HA HA

you wrote-----"The Palestinians have been given ample opportunities to accept Israeli citizenship especially in annexed East Jerusalem" Nice term Jeff but it has zero international recognition. Even your beloved USA will not put an embassy there, as they consider it 'Occupied Territory'.You can unilaterally Annex all you want but you don,t get to decide who is a citizen of land that is not yours.Don,t you ever get tired of peddling BS Jeff. You really are a comedian. Regards anyway.

"This is a very meaningful humanitarian gesture by Israel". I agree. BUT This is the ONLY "humanitarian" gesture made by Israel I have noticed - it's a start! Maybe it could develope into a habit.

"Decisions made by ICJ are not binding on Israel since 1985" I never knew that; thanks for the information. Why does the ICJ keep giving rulings concerning Israel, then? Such as, Israel's wall, declared illegal by the ICJ? Regards

I suggest you read the details of the agreement between Israel and Jordan of 1994. You will find that Israel to gave up it,s claim to that territory. The truth is only a google away and can set you free. Regards

"Israel offered citizenship to the Arab population in 1948, those who refused are out of luck today" When they refused it, they probably didn't have any idea that their part of the land would soon be so small. Anyway, so they refused once, does it mean they get no second chances? Look how many second chances our own country gets... Regards

Jeff why are you tied at the hip to the two so called Democracies that refuse to recognize International courts bodies attempting to preserve civilised behaviour.A truly Law abiding State would have no fear of being a participant. What about the rest of the post I sent Jeff. Regards.

Sarah, why does every post to Axel have to mention WW2? You don't know what his grandparents did! And didn't you know, from articles here in Haaretz, that a record number of Israelis are recently seeking German citizenship? These talkbacks are for everyone.

"Now I wonder whom the crusaders battled in Palestine 800 years ago..all history books say it was Muslim Arabs" You are quite correct. I grew up in London and went to school there and learned that in 1146 Richard the First of England led a crusade to free Jerusalem from the Saracens, which was what Muslim Arabs were called then. Well, his crusade was a miserable failure, because he and his other European allies started arguing long before they even reached Acre... Regards

Jordan ceded it,s claim to The west bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. They (Jordan)are no longer relevant. Lebrhras They only ceded the west bank and east Jerusalem to obfuscate both the PALS and Jews claim that Transjordan was given to a Hasemite Arabian usurper. Jordan belong to the PALS more so then Israel belongs to them. I guess the PALS think that Israel would not slaughter them as did the Jordanians.

I told her the same thing; who is she to tell people here to "keep their opinion to themself" and "don't push your nose in Israel's business". I consider your reply was remarkably polite, under the circumstances. Regards

"allowing 41 suffering human being to return to their own land!" I agree; they could at least have made it 141. More would be better. Regards

Howdy Labhras; Decisions made by the ICJ are necessarily binding on the UN, but they are no longer binding on Israel since 1985 when she advised the Secretary General of the UN that she would not be bound by further rulings of the ICJ (which is her right to do as a full-fledged member of the UN). Nice try, but no cigar!

"look out your window" And it's a big picture window, too...enormous settlements for the Arabs... Regards, Silvienne PS: Haven't seen any long posts from you lately?!

just the same as everyone else does. You called this a Jewish and Israeli site, and so is it. But what is being discussed is Israeli Palestinian issues, too. You surely don't want everyone on here to have the same opinion, do you? How boring that would be! Regards

Howdy Johnboy; The Palestinians have been given ample opportunities to accept Israeli citizenship especially in annexed East Jerusalem, but except for a few exceptions they have refused. By definition, a Palestinian is not an Israeli citizen (whereas an "Israeli Arab" or "Arab Iraeli" is). "Palestinians" are, by definition, hostile foreigners and are "persona non grata" within Israel. Israel offered citizenship to the Arab population in 1948, some accepted and some refused. Those who refused are out of luck today.

You missed out number four: 4. "Israel's actions can be questioned on this talkback" Regards

JN: "As Cipora pointed out before there was an ICJ ruling which prohibits the UN from imposing additional conditions on top of those contained in Art. 4 of the UN Charter for membership a year before Israel was admitted to the UN" And, so? During a discussion with the UN committee investigating Israel's claim to be a "peace loving" nation Abba Eban could see the ground slipping from underneath him, so *HE* made a public committment on behalf of his government. What Cipora and you are claiming is that the UN can't *revoke* Israel's membership because Israel refuses to live up to that public committment. Fair enough. That is not the same thing as saying that Israel is not *bound* by that public committment. It was a public committment. Israel is still bound by it. Unless you want to argue that Eban gave that committment knowing full well that his govt had no intention of living up to it? Well, yes, that'd be very zionist of him, wouldn't it?

"On what criteria is the right to comment on Israel based?" Yes, I asked Sarah that question myself. We'd better be careful what we say, she'll throw us all off the talkback ... Regards

"it's a good lesson for you not to push your nose in Israeli business, you can read the paper but keep your opinion to yourself" Who put you in charge of the talkback, Sarah? Axel has as much right as you or me to post whatever he likes. You don't like his opinion so tell him to keep it to himself. In case you didn't realise, "Israeli business" is what these talkbacks are all about! Regards

Just like a JEW who's family lived in present day Poland, Germany, or Russia for 10s of decades, these Palestinians have a right to return to their homeland. They're not even returning to 1948 Palestine, they're returning to the refugee camps in their indegenious country. So Gaza is not occupied? Then why does Israel prohibit Palestinian refugees frOM Iraq who want to reunite with family in Gaza from returning? Those who deny such occupation exists, have a figment of a brain. The occupation will end, whether Israel likes it or not. The injustices imposed on all Palestinians will NEVER be forgotten. Israel will have to impose the "final solution" on all Palestinians if it seeks to continue it's occupation or dream of establishing "Eretz Yisrael i.e. Greater Israel" because the count of Palestinians in Gaza, Israel, West Bank will eventually not just outnumber as it nearly is, but will FAR outnumber the Jewish inhabitants. End the occupation, otherwise 1 state for all!

The United States, has been very unwilling to let any Iraqi refugees into the United States. I, and I am sure, George, "immigrant basher" Bush thank Israel for letting those people escape the hell-hole the old "immigrant basher' has made out of their country. Someone should suffer the results of treating decently those whom we have forced to flee, and whom better than the Palestinians? They are, after all, neither Israeli or American.

Howdy Gil; The Philistines were the dreaded "sea peoples" who came from the west. Although most historians agree that they are of Greek origin, it is not certain from whence they came. One thing is certain, however, and that is that the Philistines were not Semitic. After their defeat at the mouth of the Nile by Pharoah Ramses I, they settled in the coastal areas of the Levant from Gaza to Phoenecia (Lebanon). Like the Canaanites, they kind of disappeared from history somewhere between 1000 B.C. and 1 B.C.

I do agree with that. Every man needs the dignity and rights we all perceive that are self evident. But, I also know all of that hinges on moving forward and not staying mired in yesterday. These arguments over who did what to who do not exactly help the issues on either side.

Sorry I have been assigned too the "Israeli Question", But I am aware that several hundred Sudanese are housed in hostels around Ireland and are awaiting refugee status.They are fed and given a mere 19 euros per week and allowed to move freely around. We do not put them in Prisons.A considerable number have already been given Refugee Status, and are free to look for work, rent apartments. Our wonderful government even pays their rent for them and gives them social welfare Payments. So I am quite comfortable with my countries efforts in that regard. Regards

Exactly right!! Every step is leading to others.

You are not one of them Regards

I notice you found a ruling that the ICJ had the authority to make.You are cherry picking Jeff and thereby weakening your position.Your rejection of the 2003 ICJ ruling was in your words, "overstepping their bounds". How convenient Jeff. I notice you have reduced your counter arguments to, "The rest of your points are ridiculous".My that is impressive. What is ridiculous is to assert that to be a citizen, one has to be a property owner. What do renters do Jeff. Lose their right to return to their "home", because they chose to leave a war zone. You continue to lose credibility, but that is normal.It is difficult to be consistent when trying to peddle non facts or untruths.One gets muddled in the end. Regards

Interesting news...During which time span did Jews live in Gaza..Send the info, I'll check it out..Much thanks.

that Samson taught your ancestors so many years ago..Forget the Media, look at the maps in existence before the State of Israel was created, before the Media had any influence on the subject..Go, GOOGLE a map of Palestine, before the Mandate, say around 1800's..Then Google a map from the period of 1920 or thereabouts..Send me the link to the map that indicates a Philistine presence...As soon as you do, I will be review it, and if justified, will support your claim...Until you can prove you stance, you're just blowing smoke... While you're at it, forward a verifiable link indicating the time span of the Philistines..

How many refugees form darfur does ireland take in, and what are YOU doing about it?? Dont you think you should spend more time on making your country a shining example instead of rrelieving the terribel tedium of your life by interfering in our buisness??Thanks

Its funny to see how much power Jews exert over your attention and mind.

Could you do your famous poodle imitation?? You know the one where you try to get Cheney to shoot me?? Thanks

Miriam, you are absolutely right. The Olmert government does Israel grave harm every day it remains in power. Sadly, Avigdor Lieberman, who was elected by Jewish nationalists, could easily bring this government down, but so far, has refused to do so. His excuse is that he is trying to reduce the harm Olmert does by staying in the coalition. It doesn't wash. I urge you to join many Israeli patriots who are demanding the Lieberman bring down this atrocious government.

JN: "There is no requirement in international law which can force Israel to accept a large number of hostile foreigners into her sovereign territory." Nationality with respect to the Law of State Succession. These are not "foreigners", Jeff, which is the point that you seem to misunderstand. They are refugees who want to return to their *HOMES*, and their homes are inside Israel. These people - and their homes - were inside Mandate territory prior to May 16 1948. That made them citizens of Mandate Palestine, and on that day Ben Gurion stood up and proclaimed that the new State of Israel had succeeded the old Mandate for Palestine in those areas under the control of the Jewish Palestinians. So sorry, Jeff, but when one state succeeds another then the nationality of the citizens in that land goes with it. THAT is the law. These refugees ARE entitled to Israeli citizenship. They are NOT forgeigners.

Howdy Tosefta; As Cipora pointed out before there was an ICJ ruling which prohibits the UN from imposing additional conditions on top of those contained in Art. 4 of the UN Charter for membership a year before Israel was admitted to the UN. You cannot, therefore, hold Israel to be bound by her acceptance of UNGARs 181 & 194 at the time. Besides, the Arab rejection of both resolutions made them null and void forever. A proposed contract between two parties which is accepted by one party but rejected by the other party is no longer binding on the party which accepted it. What do you take us for? Simpletons? The rest of your points are ridiculous. The fact remains that most of the so-called "Palestinian refugees" left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and did not own the property on which they resided (although there are some exceptions). Most of the Arabs who did own property and who actually lived on it are still there and are called Israeli Arabs with full Israeli citize

read the book of genesis and joshua.

for they civilized some of us.before we were civilized we're[our ancestors] all worshipping animals,sun,moon,molten images,etc.some of us here we're still not civilized yet.we still believe in many gods[hinduism,buddahism,new agers,allah,mormonism,etc.]

delusion allah sent to the arab world,philistine could only believe a lie.

history of the jewish people.who own the earth and the fulness thereof.It's God of Israel and not allah.do you know about ham[the father of the africans][God cursed him].canaan was named after his son.God promised canaan to the hebrews.yes, it was inhabited by pagan worshippers,the canaanites.God commanded the israelites to drive all the canaanites out of the promised land to possess it.[remember God is the owner].the israelites failed to drive them away.according to the bible esau married canaanites and ishmaelites[it's possible that they are the modern palestinians.]the bible is right...these palestinians became pricks in the jews' eyes and thorns in their side.you see,the jews were exiled to europe and north africa by the romans.because of severe persecutions they left their beloved homeland[their inheritance from isaac and jacob.]philistine,you don't own israel,your ancestors had lied to you.someday,some of the land of the middle east will come back to the rightful owner.

What Mr. Palestinian stated was that the Palestinians are actually Philistines [FILASTINS], What you and others don?t understand is that the name in the bible, which is written not in English but in another language the bibles original language, is pronounced as PLISHTIM with a capital P! Since they have some difficulty pronouncing that letter, I assume it is difficult to claim you come from the same people that in the bible are called PLISHTIM!

The bottom line is that they are Palestinian and moving into the Palestinian Authority. They are not Jordanians or Saudis. Israel is not absorbing them and is not being asked to do so.

Cipora is much, much smarter than you and your sly remarks and innuendoes are getting a bit stale and dated. That rotten cheese that you are peddling is getting more and more holes in it. So Just get yourself lost in the beautiful Swiss mountains or our encounter in Lugano for a beer is off.

Abraham the middle east from euphrates river to mediterranean sea,isaac was his heir.could it be mean,the jews owned some of the middle east.ishmael was not really his heir for he was an illegitimate son.and now the arabs claim that the middle east is theirs?

You wrote----"Being familiar with Beit Jala and not just reading the British press - to say that Israel is a country for Jews only is a blatant lie and can only be meant to intentionally mislead. Why would you want to do something like that?" Speaking of spreading lies, just a few days ago you stated that the west Bank was "uninhabited" before the Illegal Settlers arrived. How is that for spreading lies. Unless you still believe it, in which case, what can one say. Regards

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against: "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?""We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag". "When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out". THAT GIL is the Balestinian reality and no amount of Lies will change that and as I said earlier on June 4th 1967 Two nations, the Phillistines and Caananites were resurected after being dead fo over 2000 years. Quite a miracle!!!!!!

Howdy Philistine; "The property losses never were the same and not compensatable If the jews lose their properties in Egypt or Morroco or anywhere else, then they have the right to regain them by all means but wouldn`t give you the right to expell the Palestinians from their properties and place youself instead." I said approximately equal. Actually, there were more Jewish refugees (about 860,000) than Palestininian refugees (about 750,000) generated between 1947 and 1967. Furthermore, most of the Jewish refugees were forcibly expelled and did own property whereas the Palestinian refugees for the most part fled the fighting voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and didn't own squat because they were serfs under the Islamic feudal system. You cannot separate the losses incurred by each group. Either you address them both simultaneously or you address neither. "Your losses in the Arabic countries has nothing to do with the Palestinian properties." They don't? Amazing!

Fox hello On another forum when I was on the way to Karkur,etc I sent you a response,but B....Y Haaretz did not put it out.Typical! I was in Karkur/Pardes Hannah,Tel-Aviv,Jerusalem visiting all my family.And I commented that your sejourn was rather short etc,etc. Had a wonderful time with all my lot,and as usual apart from going to nice restaurants for me it is always "home from home" affair and like it a lot.I also said to you that I would have loved to have seen your "etchings" Hey Ho and a "bottle of rum". Sick to me stomach about the Pals/Arabs and their disigenuousness and fabrications. Be well too my dear FOX.Oh by the way,if you go back a couple of forums ago,I sent a versified response to Tosefta as an "ode"to your self.Did you see it?? It was just a short one,but to put him in his place when he sent you a poem calling you A rabid Fox around in verse.Remember?Whether he read I know not. Love your posts!Hope you & family are well.

Arabs killing Arabs without even the remotest Jewish connection able to rationalize it. Then you can move millions anywhere you like and no one says anything.

If you must jump in head first to someone else's discourse, you might at least use it,(your head) to understand what the conversation is about.Do a little research first and then you could save us all some valuable time, and possibly not post at all.Too much to hope for I guess. Regards

"I can`t see who gave YOU authority to decide whose noses belong into which business, or not. Can I have your credentials, please." I'll tell you who gave me the authority and I can give you my credentials. My two aunts (my father's sisters and their families - husbands and children)who were murdered by your parents/grandparents gave me the authority to tell you to exactly what you, a German, can or cannot say in a Jewish Israeli newspaper. Are these credentials enough for you?

Thanks for the info. Whether you or Cipora are correct is immaterial - I gest the jist of it.

Your government freed them of a dictator. My government is just taking the blame. The PA can not absorb anyone because the PA is not a country. There are no refugees from a country they have never seen and I don't care what stories their grandmothers told them.

Yes Man, there have been since Roman times people other than Jews that lived on the land! But unlike the Jews the population has changed, The Romans have gone to Rome The Christians have returned to their places And the Arabs you are talking about, are not the same Arabs, And the Crusades are part of the rezone! As I said the population has changed but some of the Jews have been here for centuries! Not 100 years and not 200 years but far beyond it! Most of the Jews lived in the cities like Hebron, Jerusalem, Safed and Tiberias, have been there almost continuously throughout the Byzantine, Arab, Mameluke and Ottoman period, and finely the British Mandate! Jews haven?t left Jerusalem at all, all the time you could find Jews in Jerusalem, and the records of Jews in the Holy land are well documented! The Jews lived in the cities because they were forced to do so by their oppressors! So don?t teach me my own country?s history,I know it well as a Palestinian Jew

"Ian Kershaw is professor and Head of Department at the University of Sheffield England. Holder of a doctorate from the University of Oxford, he has written extensively on Hitler, the Nazi dictatorship, and popular opinion and political dissent in the Third Reich. Kershaw served as a consultant for the Peabody Award-winning documentary series "The Nazis: A Warning from History.'" The political biography of Hitler that I quoted from is in two volumes, and was published in 1998. There is no question whatever that Kershaw is a very serious and highly respected historian. It is also unquestioned that Hitler, born to two Austrian citizens, was a born Austrian citizen.

BUT MAN ARE YOU WRONG!! ARE YOU DEBUNKING HISTORY? JEWS HAVE BEEN IN ISRAEL SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL.EVEN AFTER THE ROMANS DECIDED TO EXPEL THE JEWS NOT ALL LEFT, AND THE MAJORITY STAYED BEHIND.THUS THE JEWISH PRESENSE IN THE HOLLY LAND WENT ON UNINTERRUPTED. MAN OH MAN ARE YOU DELUDED IN THINKING THAT WE HAVE ONLY BEEN IN OUR HOLY LAND FOR A MEASLY 50/60 YEARS.GER A GOOD BOOK AND READ HISTORY TO ENLIGHTEN YOURSELF.MAN OH MAN*************

The typical attitude of the Israelis is to alter the history to suit their fake claims Arabs have been the first inhibitant to this land and remain in it till today. The evidence that state this reality is the conflict between the Crusades and the Arabs where the Jews were a tiny minority at that time. The difference in how to pronunciate the word Philistine will never alter the fact that Palestinian or Arabs were existed before jews

At least a few hundred thousand should be welcomed into your area. What part of the USA do you live in that was not previously owned by the First Nations? Why are you living in the USA when your right wing, settler attitude would be so well appreciated in say, Hebron?

In recent weeks Israel has accepted several hundred Sudanese refugees. Just today Israel ccordinated the return of stranded Gazans back to their homes (their lders certainly didn't care much - they were busy showing foreign journalists how beuatiful Gaza has become). And now you are complaining about Israel not accepting Iraqis into the country? Please answer honestly: 1) seeing as Jordan is more than twice the size of Israel and most of its population is Palestinian anyway- wouldn't that be a better option? 2) How big do you think Israel is anyway? Please tell me how many Arab countries offered to take in Jewish refugees during and after WW2? (If my memory serves me correctly, there were quite a few rab leaders that were paving the way for Rommel's troops to treat the Jews in Palestine as thy were treated in Europe. What right do you think you have to continually moan and whine about Israel?

Did I ever mention Jordan im my post ! As said before, stop putting words in other mouth ! Jordan is actually part of "Historical Palestine" country ! Furthermore, you can define Jordan as Palestinian people (75% of the population 2 b more exact) ruled by a Hashemit King and some bedouins ! Due to the fact that birth rate of Pals r far superior from the rest of the population, in 20 years. Pals will form 90% of Jordan population ! Inevitably Jordan will b forced to take part of a Palestinian Federation

hala Stop giving us historical lessons just to try and prove that the Palis' are related to the ancient civilizations.No way at all,FULL STOP! The recent nomeclature adopted to the Arabs was during the (rat Arafat)in 1964.Before that they were merely called Arabs and the Jews during the British mandate called the Jews Palestinians. Let us be honest and not confuse the issue. I read Herodotus,I read the rest of the classical writers,and no mention of Arabs anywhere.It is not a matter of quibbling,it is the truth staring you in the face.Accept it or stop your indulging yourself in false information..