What do you call a state that was founded by ethnic cleansing, led by actual terrorists and war criminals (Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Netenyahu,) lives by a docrine of a chosen master race which has led to an apartheid state with roads for the master race, laws for the master race, beatings, bombs bulldozings, broken bones, walls, checkpoints, invasions, crop uprootings, white phospherous massacres, murders, and endless landgrabs from the unarmed untermensch? You call them what they are........nazis. I am ashamed of my country for its boot clicking acquiessence to and the abetting of these disgusting crimes. Shame on the US congress for turning their backs on US interests and against all morality for the 30 pieces of silver they get from AIPAC.

Israel was attcked and it won so what now it is supposed to give land back to who?, Jordan was an occupier itself and so was Egypt, No one has ever had soviereignty over that land and decision 242 decided that there should be a solution with negotiations not an automativ assumption that the west bank belongs to palestinians, Israel annexed east Jerusalem and therefore it belongs to Israel and it can do what it likes with the land, don't forget that we didn't have peace before 1948 so making it seem like the root of the problem is wrong. Is the Gaza strip free of settlements ? Yes and it became A terror nest , Islamofacist ragime with a goal of terror and destruction.
Pelastinians could have had whatever they wanted and they chose war so they need to start creating something instead of just killing and inciting and ruining, Jerusalem is not up for negotiations and they know it.

TAXI, I share your opinion.

I don't understand how they claim to be Semites while most of them have no genetic ties to Semites and Middle Easterns. Look at 'Israelis' today: they look Polish!

As for the the claims that Arab Jews were persecuted in Arab regions, that's just another myth of the Zionist ideological machines. What occured around 1948 was the spread of a rumour that Arab wrath will fall upon Jews in Arab territories as a response to the creation of Israel, which was meant to encourage a quick immigration of Jews to the colonized Palestine. As regards the status of Jews in Arab lands, they were protected by law; they just payed Jizya, a small tax that had nothing to do with Europe's plundering of Jews' money throughout history. A comparison between the status of Jews in Arab lands and Europe will just emphasize how xenophobic Christian Europe was. Only when West started to grasp the fundamentals of human rights and equality that it started labeling Arabs and others as criminals, but history says otherwise.

I do not see Israel as a State: a colony on Palestinian lands. Israel, by defying the already weak UN resolutions and following an expansionist policy, is just contributing to its own fall.

I just find it repulsive how the epithet 'anti-semite' is used by Israel and Zionists: it is flexible, ready for use in any context and situation. It sounds like a perfect product that one can take anywhere and use anywhere. Israel hijacked Semitism and mixed it with the never-ending 'victim' story (the Jew as a victim of Hitler) to do whatever it wants.

An other question is: if Hiter persecuted Jews, why should Palestinians pay the price?

Taxi and salam have been perpetuating lies and misinformation about Jews and their origins. All that w/o any credible proof, or reference.

I know the following link which provides scientific proof of Jews link to their ancestors, is way over the head of these two gentlemen. The following study was reported by one of the most renowned Medical Centers in the world.

The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East.
Nebel A, Filon D, Brinkmann B, Majumder PP, Faerman M, Oppenheim ntA.

Department of Hematology, Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem 91120, Israel.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11573163

Now, since our friends here are talking about religion. Then by all means, lets talk about the religion of Islam. (I will have to ask for apologies from those moderate and rational Muslims - these two schmucks had just asked for it)

Considers these facts.
1. No Islamic contributions in the area of science, Medicine, etc, to mankind for past 1000 years.

2. The entire religion of Islam is based on, and predicated upon the testimony of only ONE man, whom by all accounts, he was an illiterate. His so-called "revelations from Alla". No independent corroborations, no other witnesses to attest to his daily sermons.

This man saw Jerusalem only in his dream - never set foot anywhere close to this ancient city. Yet Muslims consider it as their "3rd Holly place" (based on LITERALLY pipe dreams), for a single reason, deprive Jews of their rightful claim to this city which they had built it 3300 years ago.

I would highly suggest to you two gentlemen to look at your own backyard and your own dirty laundry, before you look at others, and accuse them with hate filled accusations.

It seems Taxi's "educated" and "concerned blue blood" is boiling red. Perhaps he should be careful for if he posts a few more comments he may be on the brink of initiating some sort of dialogue and we know that Hamas already wants to try Fayyad for his Haaretz interview. Although it appears to be more like Taxi and a few buddies standing around a soggy cookie with their pants down... I mean I apologize, I hate to offend such an altruistic humanitarian such as Taxi claims to be. I wonder what it is you do to warrant naming yourself a humanitarian. Seems to me, you don't have much time left in your day outside of reminding everybody that you hate Zionists. Yes, your wonderfully rational constitution muddled by the grotesquely ignorant generalizations inherent in armchair blogosphere philanthropists does as much for the Palestinian cause as Meshal does in Damascus as he puckers up for another kiss with Assad.

I guess this is what FP should expect when they publish such incendiary content. I can't say it's compelling or even a remote attempt to open up constructive dialogue. I wonder what the editors of this section thought when they decided to publish this, I don't know, photo essay directed by laughably melodramatic moments, "The settlers routinely taunt and throw garbage at local Palestinians..." Tell me are those locals also poindexters and overweight and running awkwardly around the gym while those pesky Jewish football players are giving out free atomic wedgies? Jews being mostly of the book, were more keen on drawing Mohammed caricatures with snooty NYT captions, but, well, it seemed the Danish beat them to it and that didn't work out so well.

"All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" - Mark Twain

Taxi should know, it's in the matzos. You see every Passover we take the blood of innocent children and make Matzos, then we eat it, and therefore inherent the youthful souls of the world.

Pesach sameach! ;)

For your information taxi, General Partreaus never said those words, he called the Israeli chief of staff and denied saying all those words.

Every Arab person that I know argues the same point as you ,and keeps on saying that times are changing and the world is changing and we just wait and see, you guys couldn't beat us in war so now you start delegitimizing Israel under the fake tune of caring about the world and human rights or American soldiers, which is ridiculous because there is so much oppression going on in the Arab world and we hear 0 from all you humanitarians, the palestinians are treated worse then crap in every arab country besides jordan.
The Arab league summit was one of the most pathetic summit's in the world, there is no such thing as Arab unity otherwise you would have won something against Israel, it was a big waste of time and it showed the world how pathetic you are.
The only thing you guys can talk about is increasing terror against Israel not one serious issue was addressed, since Israel is the only problem in the Arab world otherwise there would be peace and love in the middle east.

So I suggest to all you Israel haters to start focusing on your own problems and maybe offer positive solutions and ideas of how the
Palestinians can create things for themselves such as democracy , achieve peace, prosperity, education, economy, etcccccc. I

Since the early 20th century, Zionists have waged a relentless campaign to equate their political movement with the Jewish religion. They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism. But that doesn't change the fact that the two are antithetical.

I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns.

Jews are taught to heal the world ("tikkun olam"), not to displace families, create refugee camps, and practice collective punishment such as that used against Jews in the past.

So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism. But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.

The more anti-Semitism they create, the happier Zionists are.

From the CIA:

"While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies."

http://thehill.com/special-reports-archive/699-homeland-security-january-2010/75531-when-troops-and-cia-officers-die-for-a-fantasy

When troops and CIA officers die for a fantasy
By Michael Scheuer - 01/12/10 06:25 PM ET

The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence services are the most important part of America’s defense capital. When they enter the service of their choice they are well aware of the implicit contract between the nation and themselves. In return for their career, America has the right to call on them to go into harm’s way, very often at the risk of their lives. I have never known a Marine, a soldier or a CIA officer who did not accept this reality, and I have never known one who balked when called on to deploy. That said, each I have known — and I suppose all — hope that if defending America costs his or her life, the cause for which it is spent is clear and worthwhile. It is precisely on this point that the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches are lethally failing these men and women.

The events of the past three weeks throw into sharp relief that we are sending our young men and women overseas to fight an enemy that does not exist. Among the first thoughts expressed by President Obama after the near-miss al Qaeda attack on Christmas — and then echoed by his lieutenants, various members of both parties in Congress, and numerous pundits — was that the young Nigerian bomber hated our way of life. And since seven CIA officers in Afghanistan were killed by al Qaeda on Dec. 30, the same thought has been expressed by the same people.

This central thought has been accompanied by additional assertions, among which are the attackers were nihilistic Muslim fanatics and the attackers’ motivation has nothing to do with Islam. The sum and substance of the U.S. bipartisan political elite’s response to recent events has been — as it has been since 1996 when Osama bin Laden declared war on America — that the Islamist terrorists hate us for who we are and how we live, not for what we do.

This contention is a fantasy. It is fair to say that all the U.S. Marines, soldiers and CIA officers who have died in Afghanistan since 9/11 and in Iraq since Saddam’s removal have died fighting an enemy that does not exist. In numbers now approaching 6,000, these men and women have bravely fought and died in combat against an enemy whose main motivation U.S. political leaders have consistently denied. No U.S. soldier, Marine, or CIA officer has been killed by an Islamist fighter who took the field because America has women in the workplace, beer is available in ample supply, and there are early presidential primaries in Iowa every fourth year. Indeed, Islamists motivated by such issues would not rise to the level of a lethal nuisance; they certainly could not stymie the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so, but that is a discussion for another time and broad public debate, perhaps during the 2010 midterm elections. For now, the discussion must focus on our enemies’ motivation and the knowing failure of U.S. leaders in both parties to be honest with our fighting forces. If we fail to understand that motivation, America cannot shape a war-fighting strategy to either defend those policies or defeat the tenacious, talented, religiously motivated, and growing foe our soldiers, Marines, and CIA officers are now losing to in the field. Those men and women — and their parents, spouses and children — deserve to know they are risking their lives to defeat a skilled and enduring enemy, one who is motivated by the impact of U.S. policies, and one that genuinely threatens America. They are not fighting the cartoon-like foe described by their political leaders for the past 15 years.

Scheuer is a former senior CIA officer and adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

Israel should be "wiped off the map". The Israeli people are racist criminals. They do not deserve US protection. I absolutely abhor that my tax dollars fund this genocide. This is Middle Eastern apartheid.

Let me go back to your defunct theory of Jews in Europe, who you claim, they are converts, one would assumes from Christianity. Now use your logic man.
All throughout history, Jews were persecuted and were suffering immensely by the Christians. To be a Jew, it meant to live in horrible conditions. Beaten, robbed, spitted on, and deprived of his rights accorded to others. It seem to any logic mind that, if Jews would have converted to Christianity and Islam (As some did during the Spanish Inquisition, and Mohammad's conquest of Khybar in today's Saudi Arabia) they would have end their sufferings, and would be treated as anyone else.

Now, you tell me smart ass cookie. Why the traffic would be the opposite direction. Christians converting into Jeudaism. It just does not make much sense, where people become masochists, and chose into religion which gives them persecution, andsuffering.

As was mentioned by others. by repeating the same rubbish perpetuated by the Arab propaganda, you are the one who parrots that maligned line and act like robot. Not others.

Since the early 20th century, Zionists have waged a relentless campaign to equate their political movement with the Jewish religion. They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism. But that doesn't change the fact that the two are antithetical.

I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns.

Jews are taught to heal the world ("tikkun olam"), not to displace families, create refugee camps, and practice collective punishment such as that used against Jews in the past.

So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism. But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

From the CIA:

"While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies."

http://thehill.com/special-reports-archive/699-homeland-security-january-2010/75531-when-troops-and-cia-officers-die-for-a-fantasy

When troops and CIA officers die for a fantasy
By Michael Scheuer - 01/12/10 06:25 PM ET

The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence services are the most important part of America’s defense capital. When they enter the service of their choice they are well aware of the implicit contract between the nation and themselves. In return for their career, America has the right to call on them to go into harm’s way, very often at the risk of their lives. I have never known a Marine, a soldier or a CIA officer who did not accept this reality, and I have never known one who balked when called on to deploy. That said, each I have known — and I suppose all — hope that if defending America costs his or her life, the cause for which it is spent is clear and worthwhile. It is precisely on this point that the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches are lethally failing these men and women.

The events of the past three weeks throw into sharp relief that we are sending our young men and women overseas to fight an enemy that does not exist. Among the first thoughts expressed by President Obama after the near-miss al Qaeda attack on Christmas — and then echoed by his lieutenants, various members of both parties in Congress, and numerous pundits — was that the young Nigerian bomber hated our way of life. And since seven CIA officers in Afghanistan were killed by al Qaeda on Dec. 30, the same thought has been expressed by the same people.

This central thought has been accompanied by additional assertions, among which are the attackers were nihilistic Muslim fanatics and the attackers’ motivation has nothing to do with Islam. The sum and substance of the U.S. bipartisan political elite’s response to recent events has been — as it has been since 1996 when Osama bin Laden declared war on America — that the Islamist terrorists hate us for who we are and how we live, not for what we do.

This contention is a fantasy. It is fair to say that all the U.S. Marines, soldiers and CIA officers who have died in Afghanistan since 9/11 and in Iraq since Saddam’s removal have died fighting an enemy that does not exist. In numbers now approaching 6,000, these men and women have bravely fought and died in combat against an enemy whose main motivation U.S. political leaders have consistently denied. No U.S. soldier, Marine, or CIA officer has been killed by an Islamist fighter who took the field because America has women in the workplace, beer is available in ample supply, and there are early presidential primaries in Iowa every fourth year. Indeed, Islamists motivated by such issues would not rise to the level of a lethal nuisance; they certainly could not stymie the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so, but that is a discussion for another time and broad public debate, perhaps during the 2010 midterm elections. For now, the discussion must focus on our enemies’ motivation and the knowing failure of U.S. leaders in both parties to be honest with our fighting forces. If we fail to understand that motivation, America cannot shape a war-fighting strategy to either defend those policies or defeat the tenacious, talented, religiously motivated, and growing foe our soldiers, Marines, and CIA officers are now losing to in the field. Those men and women — and their parents, spouses and children — deserve to know they are risking their lives to defeat a skilled and enduring enemy, one who is motivated by the impact of U.S. policies, and one that genuinely threatens America. They are not fighting the cartoon-like foe described by their political leaders for the past 15 years.

Scheuer is a former senior CIA officer and adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

there will never be a lasting peace in the region unitl
1) the diplomacy and policies are based on political realities and not on emotions

2)BOTH sides agree that BOTH sides have the right to exist.

3)BOTH sides agree to give up on certain things. ie the right of return and Jerusalem.

These are the reasons why Camp David failed. Ofcourse we must also realize that one session is not enough. It will take a series of summits and a series of real concessions on both sides.

When South Africa was under a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime, the world recognized that the problem was the ideology and political system of the state.

The world also recognized that the solution to that problem could not be found either in "separation" (apartheid in Afrikaans) and scattered native reservations (called "independent states" by the South African regime and Bantustans by the rest of the world) or in driving the settler-colonial group in power into the sea.

Rather, the solution had to be found – and to almost universal satisfaction was found – in democracy, in white South Africans growing out of their racial-supremacist ideology and political system and accepting that their interests and their children's futures would be best served in a democratic, non-racist state with equal rights for all who live there.

The solution for the land which, until it was literally wiped off the map in 1948, was called Palestine is the same. It can only be democracy.

The ever-receding "political horizon" for a decent two-state solution, which, on the ground, becomes less practical with each passing year of expanding settlements, bypass roads, and walls, is weighed down by a multitude of excruciatingly difficult "final status" issues.

Israeli governments have consistently refused to discuss these final-status issues seriously, preferring to postpone them to the end of a road which is never reached – and which, almost certainly, is intended never to be reached.

Just as marriage is vastly less complicated than divorce, democracy is vastly less complicated than partition.

A democratic post-Zionist solution would not require any borders to be agreed, any division of Jerusalem, anyone to move from his current home, or any assets to be evaluated and apportioned. Full rights of citizenship would simply be extended to all the surviving natives still living in the country, as happened in the United States in the early 20th century and in South Africa in the late 20th century.

The obstacle to such a simple – and morally unimpeachable – solution is, of course, intellectual and psychological. Traumatized by the Holocaust and perceived insecurity as a Jewish island in an Arab sea, Israelis have immense psychological problems in coming to grips with the practical impossibility of sustaining forever what most of mankind views as a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime founded upon the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population.

Indeed, Israelis have placed themselves in a virtually impossible situation. To taste its bitter essence, Americans might try to imagine what life in their country would be like if the European settlers had not virtually exterminated the indigenous population and if almost half of today's American population were Indians, without basic human rights, impoverished, smoldering with resentment, and visible every day as the inescapable living evidence of the injustice inflicted on their ancestors.

This would not be a pleasant society in which to live. Both colonizers and colonized would be progressively degraded and dehumanized. The colonizers could, rationally, conclude that they could never be forgiven by those they had dispossessed and that no "solution" was imaginable. So it has been, and continues to be, in the lands under Israeli rule.

Perhaps the coming "meeting" or "conference" will be the last gasp of the fruitless pursuit of a separation-based solution. Perhaps those who care about justice and peace and believe in democracy can then find ways to stimulate Israelis to move beyond Zionist ideology toward a more humane, hopeful, and democratic view of present realities and future possibilities.

No one would suggest that the moral, ethical, and intellectual transformation necessary to achieve a decent one-state solution will be easy. However, more and more people now recognize that a decent two-state solution has become impossible.

It is surely time for concerned people everywhere – and particularly for Americans – to imagine a better way, to encourage Israelis to imagine a better way, and to help both Israelis and Palestinians to achieve it. It is surely time to seriously consider democracy and to give it a chance.

Zionism was a interesting experiment, but it has been an empirical failure and is unsustainable.

If you really want to understand how the settlements are enclosing Jerusalem watch this 5 minute informative You Tube Clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v-Tpg9xN5k

I'm particularly impressed with slide #8, the photo of the Israeli policeman shooting the tear gas rifle.

Amazing how one lone police officer gathers the press like a crowd of Papparazzi chasing Jennifer Aniston or Lady Gaga.

Check out the shot. There are easily eight or more photographers taking photos (and at least one more who took the shot that included the press).

How many riots does one know of that the press outnumber the cops.

It should tell you something of the magnitude of over-hype the press has in its coverage of Israel.

Truly what you have is not insight, but a jobs program or meals-on-wheels for the pundits and talking heads.

"I'ts like crack to their brains".
.
"monstrorous racist IDF"
.
"killing women and children and the elderly"
.
Yeah, I can see how this would be a rational conversation.

CBS News' 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

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

-David Ben-Gurion, Father of Israel

* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.

I see an Arab world devoid of its Jewish populace. From Iraq to the tip of the Maghreb, you have an entire world pretty much devoid of its Jewish population. And the "substantail communities, have populations that lie in the thousands, and are dying communities.
.
Indeed, ethnic cleansing at its finest, with the most recent, in Yemen, a nation that couldn't bear, nor protect, its final 100 to 200 Jews.
.
But you see, its not just a Jewish thing. I see the Christian communities fleeing, I see the Sunni and Shia seperating, I see the Kurds seperating. Indeed, there doesn't seem to be a single minority group accepted in this vast region... except in Israel, where for 60 years, the Arab Israeli population has actually grown. And more importantly, not fought a major conflict with the majority population.
.
Indeed, unlike ANY group in the Arab world, the Arab Israeli's have full voting rights, full legal rights, participation in both the legislature and judiciary, and permission to join and serve in the armed forces.
.
Go to slide #7, and you see the integration. Traffic signs in three languages, including Arabic.
.
Let me know when you're ready to move beyond sloganeering into actual discussion.

Life in the settlements -- 60 Minutes

CBS News' 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

Jews were living, working and praying in our ancestral homeland of ancient Israel and Judea and our capital of Jerusalem oer 1,800 years before the birth of Mohammad.

The earliest reference to Israel outside the Bible is from the stela of Pharoah Merneptah in 1209 BC

Sorry, just because our Temple was destroyed by the Romans forcing us into exile and then the Muslim invaders conquered Jerusalem centuries later does NOT negate our rights to our ancestral land.

We are the natives of Israel--Arabs are the invaders.

Genetic tests at Oxford, University of Utah, University of Utah, Harvard, University College London,etc. prove that the Jews of today are descended from the Jews of ancient Israel.

It is indeed high irony that for 2,000 years we were persecuted for killing Jesus in Jerusalem (itself ironic since he was a Jew as well). And now, today, we have people telling us that we were never in Jerusalem.

Well, again, sorry the DNA speaks for itself.

G-d did not bring us back to our ancestral homeland for no reason. We have survived the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Selucids, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Czars, the Nazis, Arafat, and on and on and we will continue to survive.

And, sorry we are not going anywhere.

The Khazar theory has been completely discredited by genetic tests.

There is no DNA evidence linking Jews to this Turkic population from the early Medieval period.

One thing I forgot to mention: the author of the "Khazar theory" was Arthur Koestler, who also believed he had ESP and in UFOs.

He created it after the Holocaust because he felt if he could say the Jews were converts, were never in Jerusalem, they could not be accused with the death of Jesus and thus there would be no anti-Semitism.

Never would he dream that the hatred of Jews is like a virus, always changing, so that today we have Muslims like the ones on this board using Koeslers discredited theories to accuse the Jews of having no right to live in their ancestral homeland...

Yes, ironic would be the word...

we are all brothers: (I am a Jew)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics

Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians

Robin McKie, science editor The Observer,

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.
Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

You just discredited your friend Taxi's theory of Jews as European colonialists stealing Arab land. .

I couldn't have said it better myself.

That said, don't you think that the Jews are entitled to the same right to self determination as the Palestinians?

I asked what you thought about the treatment of Palestinians in other arab countries and you respond with name calling and a three year old article by a member of the Israeli left that has little resemblance to the real world.

The truth is that not every Arab settlement in the West Bank is surrounded by Israeli troops. There is now free entry and access from most, if not all cities and towns. There are still checkpoints to be sure, but these are far fewer and further between than had previously been. And while we're on the subject of checkpoints, it should be noted that before the outbreak of the previous intifada in 2000, most Palestinians could enter and leave Israel with little interference from the government or military. It was not uncommon to see Palestinian families picnicking on beaches in Tel Aviv or shopping in the malls in Netanya. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians commuted to their jobs in Israel every day, where they received the same wages for their jobs as their Israeli counterparts (as mandated by Israeli law). Mentioning the restrictions put on the movement of Palestinians without mentioning why they were instituted (or what things were like before they were instituted) is kind of like complaining of someone's arrest but ignoring the fact that he was caught in the act of committing a crime.

Regarding Ms. Aloni's charges of murder, theft and rape, she's awfully long on accusation but awfully short on evidence. She makes it sound as if these are daily occurrences when in fact an examination of events wouold reveal that that's far from the case.

Obviously you have little interest in the plight of Palestinians either in or out of the West Bank and Gaza. It appears that your only interest is in the demonization of Israel.

Actually, I'm an American and a US Army veteran.

You still haven't told me how you feel about the poor treatment of Palestinians by their Arab brethren. You don't think that being deprived of citizenship, being unable to own property, enter into certain professions simply because of your ancestry is apartheid? Israeli Arabs have those rights, as do Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, but they wouldn't if they lived in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or a host of other Arab countries.

All your personal attacks do is make it obvious that you are afraid to answer the questions I put to you.

Could that be because you really don't give a damn about Palestinians except to the extent that you can use them to demonize Israel?

Like I said...

You won't answer the question because the answer is that you don't give a crap about the Palestinians or how they're treated.

NYTimes:

"Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid."

Op-Ed Contributor
A Harsh Reality for Palestinians
By AHMAD TIBI
Published: April 6, 2009

JERUSALEM — The right-wing coalition of the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, does not bode well for Palestinians in Israel. With the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, the extremists are going after the indigenous population and threatening us with loyalty tests and the possibility of “transfer” into an area nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Netanyahu’s intransigence vis-à-vis Palestinians in the occupied territories is certainly cause for concern. No less concerning is what the Netanyahu-Lieberman combination may mean to Palestinian citizens of Israel.

This government, particularly with Lieberman as foreign minister, should be boycotted by the international community, just as it once boycotted Jörg Haider, the late Austrian far-right politician who won global notoriety for his anti-immigrant views.

Lieberman, in one of many outrageous comments, declared in May 2004 that 90 percent of Israel’s Palestinian citizens “have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost.”

But my family and I were on this land centuries before Lieberman arrived here in 1978 from Moldova. We are among the minority who managed to remain when some 700,000 Palestinians were forced out by Israel in 1948.

Today, Lieberman stokes anti-Palestinian sentiment with his threat of “transfer” — a euphemism for renewed ethnic cleansing. Henry Kissinger, too, has called for a territorial swap, and Lieberman cites Kissinger to give his noxious idea a more sophisticated sheen. Lieberman and Kissinger envision exchanging a portion of Israel for a portion of the occupied West Bank seized illegally by Jewish settlers.

But Israel has no legal right to any of the occupied Palestinian territories. And Lieberman has no right to offer the land my home is on in exchange for incorporating Jewish settlers into newly defined Israeli state borders. We are citizens of the state of Israel and do not want to exchange our second-class citizenship in our homeland — subject as we are to numerous laws that discriminate against us — for life in a Palestinian Bantustan.

We take our citizenship seriously and struggle daily to improve our lot and overcome discriminatory laws and practices.

We face discrimination in all fields of life. Arab citizens are 20 percent of the population, but only 6 percent of the employees in the public sector. Not one Arab employee is working in the central bank of Israel. Imagine if there was not one African-American citizen employed in the central bank of the United States.

Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.

A few weeks ago, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party led the charge in the Israeli Knesset to ban my party — the Arab Movement for Renewal — from participating in the elections. Netanyahu’s Likud also supported the action. The Supreme Court overturned the maneuvers of the politicians. But their attempt to ban our participation should expose Israel’s democracy to the world as fraudulent.

Lieberman’s inveighing against Palestinian citizens of Israel is not new. Less than three years ago, he called for my death and the death of some of my Palestinian Knesset colleagues for daring to meet with democratically elected Palestinian leaders. Speaking before the Knesset plenum, Lieberman stated: “World War II ended with the Nuremberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house.” Lieberman now has the power to put his vile views into practice.

We call for more attention from the Obama administration toward the Palestinian minority in Israel. It is a repressed minority suffering from inadequately shared state resources. The enormous annual American aid package to Israel fails almost entirely to reach our community.

Between Netanyahu and Lieberman, the Obama administration will have its hands full. Make no mistake that Netanyahu and Lieberman will press the new administration hard to accept Israeli actions in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem — as well as discriminatory anti-Palestinian actions in Israel itself. Settlements will grow and discrimination deepen. American backbone will be crucial in the months ahead.
Ahmad Tibi is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a member of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0914/p09s01-coop.html

Palestine: democracy not Zionism

A decent two-state solution to the 'Palestinian problem' has become impossible.

By John V. Whitbeck / September 14, 2007
Jeddah, saudi arabia

With some sort of "meeting" or "conference" to kick start the peace process now being touted by the Bush administration, there is at least the appearance of an understanding in Washington of the importance for the region and the world of solving the "Palestinian problem."

However, if this problem is ever to be solved, it must be redefined. Those who truly seek justice and peace in the Middle East must dare to speak openly and honestly of the "Zionism problem" – and then to draw the moral, ethical, and practical conclusions that follow.

When South Africa was under a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime, the world recognized that the problem was the ideology and political system of the state. Anyone outside the country who referred to the "black problem" or the "native problem" (or, for that matter, to the "white problem") would instantly have been branded a racist.

The world also recognized that the solution to that problem could not be found either in "separation" (apartheid in Afrikaans) and scattered native reservations (called "independent states" by the South African regime and Bantustans by the rest of the world) or in driving the settler-colonial group in power into the sea. Rather, the solution had to be found – and to almost universal satisfaction was found – in democracy, in white South Africans growing out of their racial-supremacist ideology and political system and accepting that their interests and their children's futures would be best served in a democratic, non-racist state with equal rights for all who live there.

The solution for the land which, until it was literally wiped off the map in 1948, was called Palestine is the same. It can only be democracy.

The ever-receding "political horizon" for a decent two-state solution, which, on the ground, becomes less practical with each passing year of expanding settlements, bypass roads, and walls, is weighed down by a multitude of excruciatingly difficult "final status" issues. Israeli governments have consistently refused to discuss these final-status issues seriously, preferring to postpone them to the end of a road which is never reached – and which, almost certainly, is intended never to be reached.

Just as marriage is vastly less complicated than divorce, democracy is vastly less complicated than partition. A democratic post-Zionist solution would not require any borders to be agreed, any division of Jerusalem, anyone to move from his current home, or any assets to be evaluated and apportioned. Full rights of citizenship would simply be extended to all the surviving natives still living in the country, as happened in the United States in the early 20th century and in South Africa in the late 20th century.

The obstacle to such a simple – and morally unimpeachable – solution is, of course, intellectual and psychological. Traumatized by the Holocaust and perceived insecurity as a Jewish island in an Arab sea, Israelis have immense psychological problems in coming to grips with the practical impossibility of sustaining forever what most of mankind views as a racial-supremacist, settler-colonial regime founded upon the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population.

Indeed, Israelis have placed themselves in a virtually impossible situation. To taste its bitter essence, Americans might try to imagine what life in their country would be like if the European settlers had not virtually exterminated the indigenous population and if almost half of today's American population were Indians, without basic human rights, impoverished, smoldering with resentment, and visible every day as the inescapable living evidence of the injustice inflicted on their ancestors.

This would not be a pleasant society in which to live. Both colonizers and colonized would be progressively degraded and dehumanized. The colonizers could, rationally, conclude that they could never be forgiven by those they had dispossessed and that no "solution" was imaginable. So it has been, and continues to be, in the lands under Israeli rule.

Perhaps the coming "meeting" or "conference" will be the last gasp of the fruitless pursuit of a separation-based solution. Perhaps those who care about justice and peace and believe in democracy can then find ways to stimulate Israelis to move beyond Zionist ideology toward a more humane, hopeful, and democratic view of present realities and future possibilities.

No one would suggest that the moral, ethical, and intellectual transformation necessary to achieve a decent one-state solution will be easy. However, more and more people now recognize that a decent two-state solution has become impossible.

It is surely time for concerned people everywhere – and particularly for Americans – to imagine a better way, to encourage Israelis to imagine a better way, and to help both Israelis and Palestinians to achieve it. It is surely time to seriously consider democracy and to give it a chance.

• John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, is author of "The World According to Whitbeck."

If only the sheeple (ignorant people who are like sheep) of America knew what they are supporting!! Our tax Dollars are being used to steal land from the natives and new construction is being done for immigrants who have no connection to this land except that they were blessed to be born to a Jewish mother! How animalistic are those Jews wearing skull caps and long beards mocking the native people, throwing garbage at them, treating them worse than you'd treat a dog!! And these people believe that they are the "chosen one" and they can do whatever they want to the "lowly Arabs"!!

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=824
The excerpts from a recent interview with right wing extremist Ben Zion Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu’s 99 year old father, shows the racist, pro-apartheid mentality that is driving Israel.

Prof. Netanyahu: “The Jews and the Arabs are like two goats facing each other on a narrow bridge. One must jump to the river – but that involves a danger of death. The strong goat will make the weaker one jump… and I believe the Jewish power will prevail.”

Q: What does the Arab’s jump mean?

A: “That they won’t be able to face [anymore] the war with us, which will include withholding food from Arab cities, preventing education, terminating electrical power and more. They won’t be able to exist, and they will run away from here. But it all depends on the war, and whether we will win the battles with them.”

Q: I suppose you don’t believe in the peace process.

A: “I don’t see any signs that the Arabs want peace… we will face fierce attacks from the Arabs, and we must react firmly. If we don’t, they will go on and Jews will start leaving the country… we just handed them a strong blow in Gaza, and they still bargain with us over one hostage… if we gave them a blow that would really hurt them, they would have given us Gilad Shalit back.”

Q: Operation “cast Lead” was one of the worst blows we handed on a civilian population.

A: “That’s not enough. It’s possible that we should have hit harder.”

...

“No solution but force… strong military rule. Any outbreak will bring upon the Arabs enormous suffering. We shouldn’t wait for a big mutiny to start, but rather act immediately with great force to prevent them from going on…

If it’s possible, we should conquer any disputed territory in the land of Israel. Conquer and hold it, even if it brings us years of war. We should conquer Gaza, and parts of the Galil, and the Golan. This will bring upon us a bloody war, since war is difficult for us – we don’t have a lot of territory, while the Arabs have lots of space to retreat to. But that’s the only way to survive here.”

“There is valuable experience [on this matter] we don’t pay notice to. I mean the Ottoman rule over the Arabs. The Turks ruled over the Arabs for 400 years, and there was peace and quiet everywhere. The Arabs hated the Ottomans, but every little thing they did brought mass killings and hanging in towns squares. They were hanging people in Damascus, and Izmir… every town had hanging posts in its center…the Arabs were so badly beaten, they didn’t dare revolt. Naturally, I don’t recommend the use of hangings as a show of force like the Turks did, I just want to show that the only thing that might move the Arabs from the rejectionist position is force.”

...

Regarding the Arab citizens of Israel:

“We don’t have a real partnership with them. The Arab citizens’ goal is to destroy us. They don’t deny that they want to destroy us. Except for a small minority who is willing to live with us under certain agreements because of the economical benefits they receive, the vast majority of the Israeli Arabs would chose to exterminate us if they had the option to do so. Because of our power they can’t say this, so they keep quiet and concentrate in their daily life.

“I think we should speak to the Israeli Arabs in the language they understand and admire – the language of force.”

Life in the settlements -- 60 Minutes

CBS News' 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

I am sick of AMericans dieing for ISrael.

Why there is terror -- CIA

"The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so...."

http://thehill.com/special-reports-archive/699-homeland-security-january-2010/75531-when-troops-and-cia-officers-die-for-a-fantasy

When troops and CIA officers die for a fantasy
By Michael Scheuer - 01/12/10 06:25 PM ET

The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence services are the most important part of America’s defense capital. When they enter the service of their choice they are well aware of the implicit contract between the nation and themselves. In return for their career, America has the right to call on them to go into harm’s way, very often at the risk of their lives. I have never known a Marine, a soldier or a CIA officer who did not accept this reality, and I have never known one who balked when called on to deploy. That said, each I have known — and I suppose all — hope that if defending America costs his or her life, the cause for which it is spent is clear and worthwhile. It is precisely on this point that the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches are lethally failing these men and women.

The events of the past three weeks throw into sharp relief that we are sending our young men and women overseas to fight an enemy that does not exist. Among the first thoughts expressed by President Obama after the near-miss al Qaeda attack on Christmas — and then echoed by his lieutenants, various members of both parties in Congress, and numerous pundits — was that the young Nigerian bomber hated our way of life. And since seven CIA officers in Afghanistan were killed by al Qaeda on Dec. 30, the same thought has been expressed by the same people.

This central thought has been accompanied by additional assertions, among which are the attackers were nihilistic Muslim fanatics and the attackers’ motivation has nothing to do with Islam. The sum and substance of the U.S. bipartisan political elite’s response to recent events has been — as it has been since 1996 when Osama bin Laden declared war on America — that the Islamist terrorists hate us for who we are and how we live, not for what we do.

This contention is a fantasy. It is fair to say that all the U.S. Marines, soldiers and CIA officers who have died in Afghanistan since 9/11 and in Iraq since Saddam’s removal have died fighting an enemy that does not exist. In numbers now approaching 6,000, these men and women have bravely fought and died in combat against an enemy whose main motivation U.S. political leaders have consistently denied. No U.S. soldier, Marine, or CIA officer has been killed by an Islamist fighter who took the field because America has women in the workplace, beer is available in ample supply, and there are early presidential primaries in Iowa every fourth year. Indeed, Islamists motivated by such issues would not rise to the level of a lethal nuisance; they certainly could not stymie the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so, but that is a discussion for another time and broad public debate, perhaps during the 2010 midterm elections. For now, the discussion must focus on our enemies’ motivation and the knowing failure of U.S. leaders in both parties to be honest with our fighting forces. If we fail to understand that motivation, America cannot shape a war-fighting strategy to either defend those policies or defeat the tenacious, talented, religiously motivated, and growing foe our soldiers, Marines, and CIA officers are now losing to in the field. Those men and women — and their parents, spouses and children — deserve to know they are risking their lives to defeat a skilled and enduring enemy, one who is motivated by the impact of U.S. policies, and one that genuinely threatens America. They are not fighting the cartoon-like foe described by their political leaders for the past 15 years.

Scheuer is a former senior CIA officer and adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

http://current.com/news/politics/90392632_israels-new-online-disinformation-project-pays-bloggers-for-pro-israel-comments.htm

"The Foreign Ministry unveiled a new plan this week: Paying talkbackers to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad."

These heartless criminals like OHREALLY have sold their souls to Israeli war criminals for a few pennies, I wonder what was his cut out of the $150,000 Israeli Government earmarked for disinformation? They don't really care about running out of money, American tax Dollars are always there to help, the $150,000 is a fraction of the $3 billion they get from the American tax payers by holding the Congress hostage. Say a word against war crimes and apartheid of Israel and "the lobby" will make sure you don't get re-elected.

as a Jew let me explain -- or try to.

Many American Jews, like many Americans, have an identity problem -- there is very little in the US by way of true culture that binds us -- perhaps the BBQ and 4th of July. (see works by Joseph Campbell, e.g.) Thus immigrant communities, in trying to preserve their culture, become more and more conservative.

So just like many conservative Greek Americans look back fondly upon the past times of the GReek Monarchy, and muslim-Americans want to wear hijab (whereas in Dubai and Karachi the women wear short-sleeves and drink and party), the Jewish AMericans want to recreate a mythical Levantine culture that is missing from their lives.

Israel for them is a state of mind, more than a state. It addresses what is missing in their pathetic Brooklyn lives.

That's why many many -- if not most -- settlers are Americans, with no right to the land whatsoever.

That is why Zionism started in Europe and not in the Levant: it is borne out of an identity crisis and mythical pure past which many in the west strive to, like the Rastas strive to Ethiopia.