I think the Israelis should just build a Berlin style Wall, which they are moving towards with the fence on the Green Line, and let the PA stew in it's juices. Wall off the hate mongers and let them foul their own nest.

Pull back the settlements, partition Jerusalem, put additional border checks between Jerusalem and the rest of Israel, and have Uncle Sam pressure the hell out of the Syrians to de-militarize the parts of Lebanon that can hit Israel with cheap missiles.

Rose, I think David Frum nails it in today's diary post over at NRO.

The only thing that will keep this umpteenth peace plan rolling will be the fact that Mahmoud Abbas finally cracks down on the terrorist factions in the same manner as Michael Collins back in 1922. IF Abbas has the same courage...

I like the way Frum concludes:

"At the signing of the Anglo-Irish treaty, the British signatory, Lord Birkenhead (better known by his birth name, F.E. Smith) remarked, "I may have signed my political death warrant." Michael Collins replied, "I may have signed my actual death warrant." So he had: He was murdered by IRA gunmen in August 1922.

Many readers have written to point out that Mahmoud Abbas would risk the same fate if he were to make and honor a peace with Israel. So he would - and if he did, he would achieve yet another distinction: He would become the first Palestinian leader ever to risk his own life for his people's cause."

David: you aren't the first to bring that up, and it may be part of the final solution, but first you have to get all the settlements out of the occupied territories. You did read all of Rosemary's post, yes? Including the bit about "this land — which is all ours, which all belongs to us?"

Ok, ok. There are TWO things that can stop the peace process. :)

(no one expects the Mid-East-Peace-Process Inquisition!!)

Oh I read it, I was just sounding off on the only thing that I think will work...besides the horror of Ethnic Cleansing of the West Bank and Gaza, which would then make the Israelis as bad as the UN General Assembly maintains they are.

Fact is a lot of people were displaced when Israel was created in 1948. Through no fault of their own. They got pissed and some of them became terrorists because of it. Some of them didn't.

That land isn't any more "rightfully" Israel's than it is "The Palestinians".

3000-1468 B.C. the land of Palestine was commonly referred to as the Land of Canaan

1468-1200 Egypt conquered Canaan

1200-975 The Sea People conquered Canaan and settled in Palestine - better known as The Philistines

1000-923 King Saul made an attempt on Palestine and lost - then David came saw and kicked ass.

923-700 The Phoenicians came on the scene

722- The Assyrians defeated Samaria leading to the collapse of Israel

Then came the Babylonians(580), the Persians (540), the Macedonian Greeks(330), the Romans(63 A.D), finally around 636AD came the Arabs.

The the Crusaders(1039), the Malmuks (1253), the Ottomans (1516),the British Mandate(1917) ...The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

A lot of stuff went down in Palestine - many could "rightfully" claim entitlement to it's ownership. Alas, we have Israel, who, is an established state and "The Palestinians" who are displaced people that want what they see as their's back.

To end the "War" Israel must be willing to yield a little something back or they can continue to claim the moral high ground, continue building settlements AND DIE.

To end the "War" Israel must be willing to yield a little something back or they can continue to claim the moral high ground, continue building settlements AND DIE.

Oh, Rosemary, you're looking forward to buying a new atlas? Why don't you just consult the one you already have?

In the famous analogy from Larry Miller, picture the Middle East like a football field. Israel is a matchbook on the 50 yard line.

And now "the Palestinians" want all the matches.

Until Abbas (or whomever) crushes the forces of terror in "Palestine" there will be no two state solution.

Abbas's laughable pledge to gain a "cease-fire" with Hamas, et. al. won't cut it.

Cease-fire! As if.

Did we seek a ceasefire with al-Qaeda?

Ha! This just in:

GAZA CITY (CNN) -- The Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas on Friday stopped talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on a possible cease-fire with Israel.

"We are cutting off all dialogue with the Palestinian Authority," said Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, accusing it of trying to dictate the terms of Wednesday's peace summit in Aqaba, Jordan, to the group.

The road map is a joke because Abbas is not in control. It's that thug Arafat and Hamas.

For Abbas to have any credibility as an honest partner in peace, he is first going to have to crush Hamas. Finally and totally.

And if he doesn't, someone else will have to do it for him.

Dean:
You suggested before the war that the best way to solve the "Palestinian issue" was to go through Baghdad first.

So...what's next? I keep hearing about Teheran and Damascus.

How about Ramallah instead? Or Gaza City?

"Middle East Peace Process"

Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Oh, Rosemary, you're looking forward to buying a new atlas? Why don't you just consult the one you already have?

Because the one I have is new and there is obviously no State of Palestine on it!

And now "the Palestinians" want all the matches.

No they just want to have a place to call home - like we have, like Israel has, like Poland has...

Abbas's laughable pledge to gain a "cease-fire" with Hamas, et. al. won't cut it.

Cease-fire! As if.

Look this is a beginning. What would you prefer? A little ethnic cleansing of the innocent ones because of some bad apples.

Did we seek a ceasefire with al-Qaeda?
No but we didn't obliterate the Afghans because some bad asses lived there - we are after the bad ones.

Can you at least consider that not all the people calling themselves Palestinian are terrorists?

The road map is a joke because Abbas is not in control. It's that thug Arafat and Hamas.
For Abbas to have any credibility as an honest partner in peace, he is first going to have to crush Hamas. Finally and totally.

Crush them or perhaps get the people to rise up against them. They won't do it if they don't believe that Sharon is for real.

Sharon is gonna have problems as well because there are way too many Israelis not wanting to give an inch. Too many extremists shouting 'No, No, No, you can't have any - it's MINE!'

That HAS to stop as well because it will seriously put in jeopardy the peace process.

I'm all for a two state solution, but it will take more than is being offered for it to happen.

As far as I know, Arafat isn't exactly what I'd call irrelevant yet. He SHOULD be, but that is not the reality. Doesn't he still maintain control of the Palestinian Security forces? Doesn't he still have Eurodumbasses visiting him and offering their support (France most recently)? Doesn't he still have the support of the majority of Palestinians? Meanwhile Abbas is being painted as a US stooge, an ugly color for his position.

I believe Arafat, with the help of Hamas and their ilk, will do all they can to undermine this peace process. They, and many, many others, do not accept the existance of Israel. As the leader of Hamas said in a BBC interview (paraphrased)...A Jewish state in the ME is inconsistant with our Islamic beliefs.

This problem may require force from outside. It should've come to that long ago. I agree that Sharon should stand strong on removing the settlements, but this will not stop the Palestinians from viewing themselves as the oppressed who must stop the oppressors. Like the angry settlers, too many want the whole pie and the indiscriminate death of Jews. There are innocent Palistinians. When they speak their mind they get strung up as collusionists.

And a ceasefire with Hamas...well they've already stated their view on that, but I'll offer mine. A ceasefire is not sufficient. On the outset it implies a temporary situation.

They need to be crushed. The glorification of homicide martyrdom needs to be crushed. The unending indoctination of the children to hate needs to be crushed.

Anything short of that will not bring peace.

CBK

There will not be the slightest scintilla of a sliver of a chance of peace in the middle east until Arafat is dead.

I'm not saying his death will _bring_ peace. But his continued existence certainly blocks any and all chances for it right now. He will give up no _real_ power (behind the scenes or out in the open) while he has strength to grasp for it.

Until he is gone, any and all attempts at bringing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians are dead in the water. End of statement.

Rosemary:

[Palestinians] just want to have a place to call home...

Right. It's called "Tel Aviv."

Look this is a beginning. What would you prefer? A little ethnic cleansing of the innocent ones because of some bad apples.

Oh, don't be silly. Cut to the chase. How about regime change? How about the liberation of the Palestinian people?

Can you at least consider that not all the people calling themselves Palestinian are terrorists?

Of course. But the terrorists are the ones in charge. Liberate the people from the murderous regime of thug Arafat and Hamas, et. al.

Sharon is gonna have problems as well because there are way too many Israelis not wanting to give an inch. Too many extremists shouting 'No, No, No, you can't have any - it's MINE!'

You're being naive (and uninformed).

Here are the facts: in a recent Pew Poll, 80% of Israelis said they could live on peaceful terms with a two-state solution. Unfortunately, 80% of Palestinians said they could not.

What do you do with that? But wait there's more...

Arafat's approval rating is at 21%, down from a high of 60%+. Pretty bad, eh? It gets worse...

No one else in the poll gets over 10% and Mahmoud Abbas gets under 2%.

And you're castigating Sharon! As if!

When Arabs say "Peace in the Middle East" they mean the destruction of Israel and the extermination of its Jewish inhabitants. When they whine for "American evenhandedness" they mean we should help them do this.

To Hamas and the other numerous terrorist groups that make up the political classes of the Palestinian Arabs "Occupied Palestine" includes all of Israel. A two-state situation is no solution at all for them, it is only a jumping off point for finishing the job of extermination Hitler started. This is what the PA was for Arafat and his pals. That was the implication of his analogy, given to Arab audiences, that signing the Oslo Accords was like the treaty Muhammed made with the Quryash tribe, a fake peace to last only until he had enough power to break the treaty and massacre the other side. After Oslo Palestinian Arab attacks on Israeis grew more frequent and bloodier than before. You see, Arafat knew exactly what he was doing.

Rosemary, if the Palestinians wanted a place to live in peace they could have had it years, even decades ago. All they had to do was refrain from killing Jews. This price was too high for them to pay. They have been betrayed by their own leaders and by their "Arab Brothers," but they have jumped singing into the cesspool themselves, cooperating with the thugs who rule them. They continually betray themselves.

You're being naive (and uninformed).

Ouch! If I am being naive then you are being pretentiously callous. Your information is coming from - polls! When on earth did you become a politician? My sister's soon to be brother-in-law is a Palestinian lawyer that lives in Bethlehem. So I have information from the Arab street... I am probably more informed to the Palestinian position than you and your polls are...

Here are the facts: in a recent Pew Poll, 80% of Israelis said they could live on peaceful terms with a two-state solution. Unfortunately, 80% of Palestinians said they could not.

Unfortunately, for Sharon none of those are in his Party.

Where is this Poll that said that - how recent? Where can I find it?

And you're castigating Sharon! As if!

Please explain to me exactly where did I CRITICIZE Sharon?

I applaud him for doing this. All I have ever said was that he wasn't going to have an easy time selling it.

Arafat has been around for what...a 100 years and his approval rating is a dismal 21% - that is great. We don't want his approval to be high.

Abbas at 2%...how many people were in the poll 36. Perhaps the majority of the Palestinians are distrustful of their leadership - as they should be - maybe that is all it is.

I support Israel - always have - always will. I detest terrorism. I just see this (statehood) as being a smart move - for all concerned.

That is it.

Michael:

YOu are blaming an entire group of people for the actions of some terrorists.

Did you also blame the Afghans - because of the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Why is it so hard to believe that there are innocent people that want peace?

Did you blame the Iraqis because their leader was a Butcher? I mean if they wanted peace they could have had it right?

Ohhh, this is gonna hurt... :( I can't believe I'm standing with Ara after blasting him on the "Bush lied" issue.

BTW, I think both of you have gone a tad ballistic without just cause. Perhaps a "time out?" :))

Ok. Yes, Rose, Israel has to yield "something".

Yes, Ara, Israel can't (or shouldn't) keep the occupied territories as a part of "Judea & Samaria."

Yes, Ara, the official PLA line is that "Palestine" comprises all of Israel. But this is the official line of a political body that is very much not representative. Perhaps "Abdul six-pack" is less interested in driving Jews into the sea than finding a country of his own?

Rose: you do know that the official PLA map of the area shows "Palestine" as comprising all the territory of Israel, yes?

Ara: yes, it's hard to take seriously any Palestinian position on peace, but as Rose said, don't we have to start somewhere?

Rose: you do realize that Abbas must use violence to suppress Palestinian terrorists, if necessary? Otherwise the so-called peace process is a farce.

Rose: do you have any idea what is needed when you say "crush [Hamas/terrorists], or ...get the people to rise up against them?" Do you have any grasp of the odds of what will happen to any Palistinean leader to does that? Hell, for over 30 years the PLO/PLA has touted terrorists as heros. You can't change that feeling overnight. Not to mention it takes a tremendous amount of moral courage to almost literally commit suicide, which is what you expect Abbas to do... Again, I cite Michel Collins.

Ara: I think perhaps that your expectations of regime change for the PLA are premature. I don't think the terrorists are in charge.

In summary:

I'm amazed that Sharon (Sharon? Sharon!?) ever said anything about the settlements in the occupied territories, much less refer to them as "occupied" (I'm sure Ara could do a much better job than I of explaining the shades of his actual words) territories. Sharon has gone a lot farther than I ever expected he would.

So, now we need to have the PLA say, flat out that Isreal has the right to exist. Then Abbas has to renounce the "right of return". After that (and this is the hard part) Abbas has to neutralize or destroy all resistance to this position; again, as Michael Collins did.

After that: maybe, just maybe, we can think about peace.

As Zorro said "This is going to take a lot of work."

Rose: you do know that the official PLA map of the area shows "Palestine" as comprising all the territory of Israel, yes?

Yes, Casey honey, I know that. Did you know that the land that has always been called Palestine - comprises a whole lot more than that. Map during Time of Christ

Rose: you do realize that Abbas must use violence to suppress Palestinian terrorists, if necessary? Otherwise the so-called peace process is a farce.

Yes, again I realize that too! Nothing that I have said would indicate that my brain has gone suddenly decrepid. I thought for ONCE I was starting to sound a little more "Liberal".

Rose: do you have any idea what is needed when you say "crush [Hamas/terrorists], or ...get the people to rise up against them?" Do you have any grasp of the odds of what will happen to any Palistinean leader to does that?

Yes, Casey again I do know what would be involved here. I also know that it is not impossible. Just not easy.

Casey: Where in anything that I've written here or ever have I castigated Sharon?

That is what Ara thinks I'm doing and why he seems to have blown a gasket...

I was trying to be positive and not so biased - guess some people can't handle that.

Rosemary, your history conveniantly leaves out the Jews, of whom there is plenty of historical and archeological evidence from 500 BCE on (with some evidence from before that time), and which people have an unbroken connnection in language and national mythology with Jews from then to the present. Much ritual has changed, but post-Temple rabbinic ritual almost always "quotes" and derives its rationale from Temple sacrificial ritual.

"Did you know that the land that has always been called Palestine - comprises a whole lot more than that. "

Wrong. The land was not called "Palestina" until the Romans renamed it after they destroyed the Jewish state of Judea and the 2nd Temple.

Rosemary, ask the "Palestinians" why their national identity is based on a Roman re-name of a conquered country, whereas the Jewish identity is based on Hebrew names that were used by the actual Jews who lived there and which actually mean something in Hebrew?

("Israel" = "God-wrestler," "Judea" or "Judah" = "one who gives thanks." "Palestine" deasn't mean anything in Arabic.)

How about all those towns with Hebrew names, which are mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures which date before the Romans, such as Hevron and Beit Lehem and Yerushalayim?

There is no "ancient Palestinian culture." There IS ancient Jewish culture, which is encapsulated in successive layers of more modern Jewish culture (Jews don't throw away ANYTHING).

Of course the "Palestinians" don't need an ancient history in the area to justify a state, anymore than Europeans needed indigenous history to justify "America," but the Jews DO have the history and the 2000 year old desire, which should count for something. At least it should not be erased from your timeline.

I don't know where you're getting your "history," but it's mostly false.

The problem with a lot of sites about history in the area is that they use the Bible as a source as well as archeological and documentary evidence. Some things in the Bible are true (verifiable from other sources, such as the Babylonian captivity) and some are unknown (such as the Egyptian slavery, for which there is a little evidence, but not conclusive by any means). Issues with using the Bible as a source:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm

These sites seem to base their history on actual evidence:
http://www.pinn.net/~sandy/Timeline/time3Fr.htm
http://www.pinn.net/~sandy/Jerusalem/conflictsum.htm
http://www.centuryone.com/hstjrslm.html
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Synagogue.htm
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.03.21/philologos.html
http://mosaic.lk.net/timeline.html
http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/
(This one starts with the destruction of the 2nd Temple, for some reason, but has lots of detail on Jewish presence in the area after the beginning of the diaspora.)
(Barnavi edited the Historical Atlas of the Jewish People which is a wonderful resource - you can get a used copy on Amazon for $20.)

I honestly don't see where Rose has attacked Sharon.

As for Yehudit's assertions: So far as I'm concerned, the Israelis have no more claim to legitimacy than the Palestinians. The Jewish religion may tell them you that you "deserve" that land, but frankly, the rest of us are under no obligation to respect your religion-based claim.

The simple fact is that the state of Israel has only been there for half a century. You don't get to leave an area for a couple of millenia and then come back and say "we're back!" and have everyone universally recognize that your claim is legitimate. Regardless of what your Bible tells you.

Israel's existence is a fait accompli. So is Palestine's--it exists because people are living there, have been living there for decades, who call themselves that.

Fortunately, most Israelis are smart enough to recognize this, even if some American radicals and about 1 in 5 Israelis don't want them to.

but the Jews DO have the history and the 2000 year old desire, which should count for something. At least it should not be erased from your timeline

They aren't.
See****

1000-923 King Saul made an attempt on Palestine and lost - then David came saw and kicked ass.

Look Yehudit, I found my history in a book - many books as a matter of fact. I never siad it was called Palestine from the beginning, duh?

The very first thing I said was this the land of Palestine was commonly referred to as the Land of Canaan in 3000 B.C.

I know perfectly well that it was the Romans that named it. Most people here debating know that as well. Most people here give my intellect a little more credit than you are and it's a bit insulting.

The history that I found isn't "my history". I'm 100% Polish - dude. It is history that has been written down and if you are so up on the history why is it that you didn't know that Saul and David were Jewish Kings?

If you did then you wouldn't have stupidly implied that I was leaving out the Jews like some radical anti-semite...would ya?

I also clearly pointed out thatin 636AD came the Arabs.

My history dates back to 3000 B.C - from actual books written by historians. I have the Timetables of History and a Wall Chart of World History - both go back to 5000B.C.

If you are gonna cry over my history perhaps you should go back a bit farther - FIRST!

Rose: sorry if I seemed to be cracking on you, but at the time it seemed like a nice bit of symmetry to comment on both your and Ara's remarks at the same time. Maybe it didn't work too well. :)

By the way, doesn't "Palestine" come from "Philistine"?

Rose, Casey:

The majority of Israelis are ready to live with a Palestinian state, but the majority of Palestinians aren't ready to reciprocate. Until that gets worked out, there isn't much to debate.

Ara:

Then WHY are you so set to argue with me? Is it because I have finally decided I was sick of people dying? What is your deal?

Casey:

It's cool. I didn't feel cracked on - much...
Yes, the origin of Palestine or Palestina is Plesheth which in English would be Philistine.

You're right Rosemary, I didn't see the Saul and David line. (Ironically there isn't any archeological proof of their existence, but there are references to Israelite kings in the records of other countries starting around 1000 BCE.)

However, you said:
"1000-923 King Saul made an attempt on Palestine and lost - then David came saw and kicked ass."
It wasn't called Palestine until a thousand years later.

You also left out the timelines for Jewish kingdoms and lineages up to the Roman destruction. My links supply some of that detail. You say:
"923-700 The Phoenicians came on the scene"
Well, there was a Jewish kingdom there at that time. Your sentences imply that "David kicked ass" and then disappeared or something. Then you say:
"722- The Assyrians defeated Samaria leading to the collapse of Israel"

This implies there was no Jewish state to be conquered by Nebuchadnetzar 150 years later. You completely leave out its existence during that time. You say:
"Then came the Babylonians(580), the Persians (540), the Macedonian Greeks(330), the Romans(63 A.D), finally around 636AD came the Arabs."

Except for 70 years when the Babylonian exiles could not go back to Israel, there was a Jewish kingdom (either independent or under Roman rule) on that spot until the Bar Kochba revolt.

You also said:
"A lot of stuff went down in Palestine - many could "rightfully" claim entitlement to it's ownership. Alas, we have Israel, who, is an established state and "The Palestinians" who are displaced people that want what they see as their's back. "

Your "alas" implies that the re-establishment of the Jewish state is a bad thing. I guess if your history timeline doesn't mention it, that would make sense. But your timeline is grossly inaccurate because of its gaps. You also said:
"Yes, Ara, Israel can't (or shouldn't) keep the occupied territories as a part of "Judea & Samaria." "
Judea and Samaria are the historical names of those areas. They are called that by some people to remind us that this was Jewish land 2000 years ago, and for centuries before that. but if you have a timeline with huge gaps, it's understandable that you would put them in quotes.

In your most recent post you say:
"fact. I never siad it was called Palestine from the beginning, duh?"

Yes you did. In an earlier post you said:
"Did you know that the land that has always been called Palestine - comprises a whole lot more than that."

You said:
"The very first thing I said was this the land of Palestine was commonly referred to as the Land of Canaan in 3000 B.C."

It had several other names between 3000 BCE and 100 CE. Names like Judea, Samaria, Israel. You don't mention those.

Then you say:
"My history dates back to 3000 B.C - from actual books written by historians. I have the Timetables of History and a Wall Chart of World History - both go back to 5000B.C."

Rosemary, none of your actual dated references were wrong, but they were very selective and your surrounding comments created an inaccurate impression by leaving out large chunks, which just happen to be Jewish history.

If you care about historical accuracy, you won't mind reading the references I provided and expanding your knowledge.

Dean, you say:
"As for Yehudit's assertions: So far as I'm concerned, the Israelis have no more claim to legitimacy than the Palestinians. The Jewish religion may tell them you that you "deserve" that land, but frankly, the rest of us are under no obligation to respect your religion-based claim."

Dean, you are knocking down a straw man. You are usually very logical, so I am surprised at you.

I specifically did NOT make a religious claim. I specifically limited my assertions to historical facts about the people who lived on that land for centuries, based on archeological evidence.

Your immediate knee-jerk response to my HISTORY by calling it RELIGION is similar in kind (if not in scale) to Arafat's attempts to expunge the Temple Mount of Jewish artifacts and Holocaust denial. This is history, Dean - the documentable history of my people. Why do you try to delegitimize it by calling it "religion"?

I have noticed that some liberals immediate start accusing me of a "Biblical claim" whenever I bring up Jewish history. They seem to be reluctant to acknowledge its reality. Rosemary's timeline whitewashing does the same thing. Your post is really egregious because I even said I am talking about what can be historically documented, and I said the Palestinians don't need this level of indigenousness to claim a state. I wonder if you read my post at all.

Lots of knees jerking around here.

"The simple fact is that the state of Israel has only been there for half a century. You don't get to leave an area for a couple of millenia and then come back and say "we're back!" and have everyone universally recognize that your claim is legitimate. Regardless of what your Bible tells you."

About the Bible, see previous post.

Jews didn't leave for 2 millenia and "come back." That is a standard Palestinian propaganda line, and more history erasure.

Jews continued to live in what was now Palestine to whatever extent they were allowed to. They were repeatedly kicked out and massacred by various rulers, then allowed back in. For a time, Jews were even forbidden to embark on ships bound for Palestine from Europe.

Some of the links I provided have information on Jewish occupation in Israel over the past 2000 years, particularly in the Galilee, Hevron and Beit Lehem. Much of the time Jews were not allowed in Jerusalem, but Jerusalem has had a majority Jewish population for over 150 years.

Jews of the diaspora throughout the Middle Ages periodically spent a lot of time and money trying to make settlement in Palestine, even though it was dangerous. To say "You 'left' and came back" as though we chose to leave, as though we weren't driven out, massacred, and sold into Roman slavery, as though we weren't saying "Next year in Jerusalem" at every holiday, as though all our holidays didn't continue to follow the Israeli agricultural calendar even in Russia and China and Argentina, as though the rabbinical academies and kabbalist communities in Palestine never existed . . . .

Well, it's a denial of historical fact, and a nasty thing to say, to boot. But don't take my word for it - read some annotated with primary sources Jewish history and archeology of the region. I spent a lot of time finding links that were pretty secular and scientific - read them.

Yehudite:

I gave a very sparce outline of history - I wasn't looking to bore the crap out of people with my ability to read. My point is doing so has obviously been missed, by you.

You are seeing slights where there are none. I am not going to argue mere semantics with you - it is pointless.

You also said:
"Yes, Ara, Israel can't (or shouldn't) keep the occupied territories as a part of "Judea & Samaria." "

Actually, smarty pants - finger pointer I didn't say that. Casey did.

I misspoke when I said to Casey that land that was "always" known as Plaestine- you wanna see something evil or retarded in it fine.

As to the rest of it - you m'dear appear to be doing a bit of knee-jerking yourself.

I simply have no interest in being told that I'm wrong by omission because I don't hours to type a history lesson. You have stated that my history is grossly inaccurate - turns out that nothing I typed was wrong - your whole problem with me is that I didn't say enough about the Jews. I left out a whole bunch more - I was making a point not teaching history.

Get over it.

Getting off the topic of the history of Israel/Canaan/Palestine, and back to the original post, let's compare the opposition to this peace plan in Israel and the territories.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aksa, among others, want to push all the Israeli's out to the sea via bombings, shootings, etc. This is their stated goal and purpose.

Israel has tens of thousands of settlers who peacefully protest the plan. They aren't murdering Palestinians daily.

I guess I just get amused at the token "extremists on both sides" bit, considering one side's extremists strap bombs to themselves to kill innocents, and the other side's extremists live somewhere they shouldnt be. I end up concluding that more work and pressure is needed to cope with one than the other.

Note: the Kach party, kind of equivalent to hamas, is BANNED in Israel.

"I gave a very sparce outline of history - I wasn't looking to bore the crap out of people with my ability to read. My point is doing so has obviously been missed, by you."

I understood your point to be something about the various peoples which conquered and resided in what is now Israel. I was pointing out that you made the Jewish soveriegnty over the land much smaller than it was. In a duscussion about the existence of the State of Israel, this isn't trivial.

"Actually, smarty pants - finger pointer I didn't say that. Casey did.

I misspoke when I said to Casey that land that was "always" known as Plaestine- you wanna see something evil or retarded in it fine. "

"smarty pants"? "evil or retarded"? If you have to respond my remarks on this level, then my remarks speak for themselves quite well.

"You have stated that my history is grossly inaccurate - turns out that nothing I typed was wrong - your whole problem with me is that I didn't say enough about the Jews."

Rosemary, you could have responded by saying "thanks, Judith, for going to the trouble to find URLs which fill in the blanks and give us a less distorted picture, which is important for discussing this issue." Instead you got snarky and defensive.

I notice no one has taken issue with my response to Dean's comment about "the Jews left and then came back." If I have accomplished nothing else but refuting that particularly vile bit of propaganda, I'm happy.

PS I posted one last comment on this old thread because I'm linking to it.