The things I don't get about this conflict

[Munin]

The Arabs ruled the Isreali land from 636 to 1099 (463 years), Egyptians ruled it during 1260 - 1517 (257 years) and the Ottomans ruled it during 1517 - 1917 (400 years). So in total that is about 1120 years that the neighbouring regions ruled over the country now known as Israel, does that give them the right to claim this land now? And if so, which country gets to claim it? I think it is obvious that the answer here is no, they were clearly not the "indigenous" people of the land. They occupied the land much in the same way that the roman empire occupied it before.


Jewish people as far as the history books go back in time seem to have always lived in the land, so it is reasonable for the jews to claim this as their homeland.


The establishment of the nation of Israel is clearly a heritage of WWI and WWII, because of the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WWI the Ottomans gave much of their land to the french and british allied forces who now legally owned the land and could do whatever they want with it. The british started to arm both arabs as wel as the jews living their in an effort to establish a security force for the newly gained land. After WWII the british decided to give the land to the jews living there because of the devastation the war did to the Jewish people.

The problem here was that in 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others. Clearly a majority of muslims, but as at this time the land is not a democracy (just as all neighbouring muslim countries now it was a dictatorship ruled by the brittish). As a result of the war in europe many more Jews immigrated to the land and this didn't go well with the arabs that felt threatened by this (for good reasons), the nationalistic zionist movement that was growing stronger feuled the opposition even more. Both sides have their good reasons for supporting their own faction: because the arabs have also migrated in large numbers to palestine, shouldn't the jews have the right to do the same? And the nationalist movement being a result of the massacres in europe that ve led to a real need for a home country. And the arabs have good reason to be rebellious against a possibly future nationalistic government that would increasingly begin to exclude them.

The decision of the british to give Palestine to the jews was only an accident waiting to happen, but a legitimite gesture because the british legitimate ownership of the land. Looking at it with todays ideology of democracy and human rights it becomes clear how hypocritic the decision really would be if it happened today (but it didn't).

Then an "War of Independence" of the arab "Catastrophe" happened where a majority of 7 nations fought against one, where the newly born Israel became a creation of its aggressors. Like in many wars one nation conquered land from (an)other nation(s), being now "legally" owned by the Israel (that is if the war is over).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/1948_arab_israeli_war_-_Oct.jpg

So what is all this shit about unjust occupation? Polland now occupies land of germany, Russia occupies land of finland, Italy occupies land of Austria, the US occupies land of Japan, Belgium occupies land of germany, ... This is all a result of war, how come the inhabitants of all these other occupied lands seem to be doing fine?


Is it because they re being treated better?
Is it because they re not religious nutcases?
Is it because they don't attack their fellow citizens?
Is it because they re stupid/weak enough to live in a country that isn't their own?
Is it because they have the same religion as the inhabitants of the country that occupies them?
Is it because the countries who fought the war with Israel couldn't recognize defeat if it would slap them in the face?
Is it because Israelis were stupid not to expell all arabs?
Is it ...

I ll gave a big number of questions because the answer isn't really clear to me (don't confuse these questions with being answers of my own, that s why I ve put a "?")

 

[P F Tinmore]

In the early 20th century about 8% of Palestinians were Jews. They could trace their ancestry back to biblical times. They were still living in their homeland. But, they were only one of many who had any rule in Palestine over the centuries and that rule was for a brief period of time. They never ruled the entire country.

About 20% of Palestinians were Christians and the remainder were virtually all Muslims. Most of these could trace their ancestry back hundreds even thousands of years. Over time some immigrated to Palestine to be a part of that society. All historic accounts state that there was an amicable relationship among the indigenous Muslims, Christians, and Jews. One Jew said: "Our grandmothers used to babysit each others children."

Then the Zionists came along to claim the country to be exclusively for the Jews. They proceeded to drive the indigenous Muslims and Christians out of their homes and off their land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the biggest fallacies of this conflict is that the UN partitioned Palestine creating the State of Israel. That never happened. Palestine was not partitioned.

Many downplay the fact that Israel has no borders. Palestine has defined borders that have not changed since before 1947. Israel has none. You cannot point to anyplace on the map and say this is inside Israel's borders.

This is important. When it is reported that rockets have been fired into Israel on Sderot, for example, Sderot is not within an Israeli border. It is, however inside Palestine's defined borders. The Palestinians claim that Sderot is an Israeli settlement on Palestinian land. There is nothing to say they are incorrect.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

I guess I would support the plight of the paistinians more if I saw them pushing against Jordan as much as they do against Isreal. Can't tell you the last time I heard the media or UN members complain that Jordan stole their land...just those evil Jews.

-TSO

 

[P F Tinmore]

I guess I would support the plight of the paistinians more if I saw them pushing against Jordan as much as they do against Isreal. Can't tell you the last time I heard the media or UN members complain that Jordan stole their land...just those evil Jews.

-TSO

I think the major difference is that Jordan merely raised a new flag over city hall where Israel expelled most of the population. If Israel allowed all those expelled to return home the conflict would eventually fade away.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Unfortunately, I don't see any resolution that doesn't force segregation of the Israelis and the Palestinians with clear defined and agreeable borders.

-TSO

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unfortunately, I don't see any resolution that doesn't force segregation of the Israelis and the Palestinians with clear defined and agreeable borders.

-TSO

The partition, or two state solution as it is called now, has been attempted since 1937. We are farther away from that solution now than we were over 70 years ago.

 

[al Haq]

There is so much in the OP to respond to, I scarcely know where to begin. So I guess I might as well start at the beginning.

The Arabs ruled the Isreali land from 636 to 1099 (463 years), Egyptians ruled it during 1260 - 1517 (257 years) and the Ottomans ruled it during 1517 - 1917 (400 years). So in total that is about 1120 years that the neighbouring regions ruled over the country now known as Israel, does that give them the right to claim this land now? And if so, which country gets to claim it? I think it is obvious that the answer here is no, they were clearly not the "indigenous" people of the land. They occupied the land much in the same way that the roman empire occupied it before.


Jewish people as far as the history books go back in time seem to have always lived in the land, so it is reasonable for the jews to claim this as their homeland.

This line of reasoning gets repeated a lot by seemingly reputable "experts," so I am not blaming you for reciting it. However, this timeline is missing quite a bit.

Anyways, no, the Jewish people were certainly not the original inhabitants of the land according to the history books (not even by Biblical accounts.)

The earliest inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanites, and the region was known as the Land of Canaan. Archeaological evidence of the Canaanite city-states has been excavated in Jerusalem, Gaza, Jericho and other sites, and dates back to about 3000 BC.

The region was already under Egyptian rule by the time the Hebrews arrived in about 1250 BC.

I can't post URLs yet, but there is a very nice animated map at w w w dot Maps of War dot com that shows the parade of conquering empires that came and went over 40 centuries - go to the main page and click "Imperial History of the Middle East."

 

[al Haq]

I guess I would support the plight of the paistinians more if I saw them pushing against Jordan as much as they do against Isreal. Can't tell you the last time I heard the media or UN members complain that Jordan stole their land...just those evil Jews.

-TSO

I think the major difference is that Jordan merely raised a new flag over city hall where Israel expelled most of the population. If Israel allowed all those expelled to return home the conflict would eventually fade away.

This is true. Also, Jordan formally ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestinians more than 20 years ago.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is so much in the OP to respond to, I scarcely know where to begin. So I guess I might as well start at the beginning.

The Arabs ruled the Isreali land from 636 to 1099 (463 years), Egyptians ruled it during 1260 - 1517 (257 years) and the Ottomans ruled it during 1517 - 1917 (400 years). So in total that is about 1120 years that the neighbouring regions ruled over the country now known as Israel, does that give them the right to claim this land now? And if so, which country gets to claim it? I think it is obvious that the answer here is no, they were clearly not the "indigenous" people of the land. They occupied the land much in the same way that the roman empire occupied it before.


Jewish people as far as the history books go back in time seem to have always lived in the land, so it is reasonable for the jews to claim this as their homeland.

This line of reasoning gets repeated a lot by seemingly reputable "experts," so I am not blaming you for reciting it. However, this timeline is missing quite a bit.

Anyways, no, the Jewish people were certainly not the original inhabitants of the land according to the history books (not even by Biblical accounts.)

The earliest inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanites, and the region was known as the Land of Canaan. Archeaological evidence of the Canaanite city-states has been excavated in Jerusalem, Gaza, Jericho and other sites, and dates back to about 3000 BC.

The region was already under Egyptian rule by the time the Hebrews arrived in about 1250 BC.

I can't post URLs yet, but there is a very nice animated map at w w w dot Maps of War dot com that shows the parade of conquering empires that came and went over 40 centuries - go to the main page and click "Imperial History of the Middle East."

Here are a few.

The Canaanites (c. 2000 BC- 1468 BC)

THE EGYPTIANS(C. 1468- 1200 BC)

THE PHILISTINES* (c. 1200-975 BC)

The Israelites The Kingdom of David(c.975- 925 BC)

THE CANAANITE PHOENICIANS* (C.925-700 BC)

http://www.jerusalemites.org/history_of_palestine/12.htm

 

[Munin]

There is so much in the OP to respond to, I scarcely know where to begin. So I guess I might as well start at the beginning.

The Arabs ruled the Isreali land from 636 to 1099 (463 years), Egyptians ruled it during 1260 - 1517 (257 years) and the Ottomans ruled it during 1517 - 1917 (400 years). So in total that is about 1120 years that the neighbouring regions ruled over the country now known as Israel, does that give them the right to claim this land now? And if so, which country gets to claim it? I think it is obvious that the answer here is no, they were clearly not the "indigenous" people of the land. They occupied the land much in the same way that the roman empire occupied it before.


Jewish people as far as the history books go back in time seem to have always lived in the land, so it is reasonable for the jews to claim this as their homeland.

This line of reasoning gets repeated a lot by seemingly reputable "experts," so I am not blaming you for reciting it. However, this timeline is missing quite a bit.

Anyways, no, the Jewish people were certainly not the original inhabitants of the land according to the history books (not even by Biblical accounts.)

The earliest inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanites, and the region was known as the Land of Canaan. Archeaological evidence of the Canaanite city-states has been excavated in Jerusalem, Gaza, Jericho and other sites, and dates back to about 3000 BC.

The region was already under Egyptian rule by the time the Hebrews arrived in about 1250 BC.

I can't post URLs yet, but there is a very nice animated map at w w w dot Maps of War dot com that shows the parade of conquering empires that came and went over 40 centuries - go to the main page and click "Imperial History of the Middle East."

Yes you re right about the canaanites, but from what I understand it was not exclusively under egyptian rule/occupation (but under egyptian influence: It seems they traded with Egyptians and the Syrrians). It s also clear that the Canaanites where not egyptians or syrrians, but a separate people. So far the "historical" claim of the Egyptians or the Syrrians or other surrounding countries of today to the land. As the Philistines invaded the land they intermarried with the canaanites, getting their seperate identities lost. This seems to strengthen the claims of the Israelites? Or is this a wrong assumption? What is unclear to me, is how palestinians are often categorised in the same way: since many palestinians are ascendants from people who re from neighbouring countries, it seems to weaken the claim of "palestinians" (as they ve been described today is not a group of people with the same identity) being the real ascendants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is so much in the OP to respond to, I scarcely know where to begin. So I guess I might as well start at the beginning.

The Arabs ruled the Isreali land from 636 to 1099 (463 years), Egyptians ruled it during 1260 - 1517 (257 years) and the Ottomans ruled it during 1517 - 1917 (400 years). So in total that is about 1120 years that the neighbouring regions ruled over the country now known as Israel, does that give them the right to claim this land now? And if so, which country gets to claim it? I think it is obvious that the answer here is no, they were clearly not the "indigenous" people of the land. They occupied the land much in the same way that the roman empire occupied it before.


Jewish people as far as the history books go back in time seem to have always lived in the land, so it is reasonable for the jews to claim this as their homeland.

This line of reasoning gets repeated a lot by seemingly reputable "experts," so I am not blaming you for reciting it. However, this timeline is missing quite a bit.

Anyways, no, the Jewish people were certainly not the original inhabitants of the land according to the history books (not even by Biblical accounts.)

The earliest inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanites, and the region was known as the Land of Canaan. Archeaological evidence of the Canaanite city-states has been excavated in Jerusalem, Gaza, Jericho and other sites, and dates back to about 3000 BC.

The region was already under Egyptian rule by the time the Hebrews arrived in about 1250 BC.

I can't post URLs yet, but there is a very nice animated map at w w w dot Maps of War dot com that shows the parade of conquering empires that came and went over 40 centuries - go to the main page and click "Imperial History of the Middle East."

Yes you re right about the canaanites, but from what I understand it was not exclusively under egyptian rule/occupation (but under egyptian influence: It seems they traded with Egyptians and the Syrrians). It s also clear that the Canaanites where not egyptians or syrrians, but a separate people. So far the "historical" claim of the Egyptians or the Syrrians or other surrounding countries of today to the land. As the Philistines invaded the land they intermarried with the canaanites, getting their seperate identities lost. This seems to strengthen the claims of the Israelites? Or is this a wrong assumption? What is unclear to me, is how palestinians are often categorised in the same way: since many palestinians are ascendants from people who re from neighbouring countries, it seems to weaken the claim of "palestinians" (as they ve been described today is not a group of people with the same identity) being the real ascendants.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that Palestinians are, or should be, a homogeneous group. They should have a distinct identity. Who should "own" the land. Should it be the Arab/Muslim group or should it be the Jewish group. What about the Christians.

Palestine was, and is, a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi religious society. Politically Palestine has been in constant flux. However over time there has been a group of people who have stayed, intermarried, put down roots and have formed an indigenous population that is anything but homogeneous. Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike were living in their homeland. And they are all Palestinians.

Who should "own" America? Should it be the British, the Italians, the Africans? It is said the we are a Christian nation. Does that mean we should expel all the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus?

Who is an American? We all are.

Who is a Palestinian? They all are.

Who should own either exclusively? No one.

 

[Munin]

There is so much in the OP to respond to, I scarcely know where to begin. So I guess I might as well start at the beginning.



This line of reasoning gets repeated a lot by seemingly reputable "experts," so I am not blaming you for reciting it. However, this timeline is missing quite a bit.

Anyways, no, the Jewish people were certainly not the original inhabitants of the land according to the history books (not even by Biblical accounts.)

The earliest inhabitants of Palestine were Canaanites, and the region was known as the Land of Canaan. Archeaological evidence of the Canaanite city-states has been excavated in Jerusalem, Gaza, Jericho and other sites, and dates back to about 3000 BC.

The region was already under Egyptian rule by the time the Hebrews arrived in about 1250 BC.

I can't post URLs yet, but there is a very nice animated map at w w w dot Maps of War dot com that shows the parade of conquering empires that came and went over 40 centuries - go to the main page and click "Imperial History of the Middle East."

Yes you re right about the canaanites, but from what I understand it was not exclusively under egyptian rule/occupation (but under egyptian influence: It seems they traded with Egyptians and the Syrrians). It s also clear that the Canaanites where not egyptians or syrrians, but a separate people. So far the "historical" claim of the Egyptians or the Syrrians or other surrounding countries of today to the land. As the Philistines invaded the land they intermarried with the canaanites, getting their seperate identities lost. This seems to strengthen the claims of the Israelites? Or is this a wrong assumption? What is unclear to me, is how palestinians are often categorised in the same way: since many palestinians are ascendants from people who re from neighbouring countries, it seems to weaken the claim of "palestinians" (as they ve been described today is not a group of people with the same identity) being the real ascendants.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that Palestinians are, or should be, a homogeneous group. They should have a distinct identity. Who should "own" the land. Should it be the Arab/Muslim group or should it be the Jewish group. What about the Christians.

Palestine was, and is, a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi religious society. Politically Palestine has been in constant flux. However over time there has been a group of people who have stayed, intermarried, put down roots and have formed an indigenous population that is anything but homogeneous. Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike were living in their homeland. And they are all Palestinians.

Who should "own" America? Should it be the British, the Italians, the Africans? It is said the we are a Christian nation. Does that mean we should expel all the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus?

Who is an American? We all are.

Who is a Palestinian? They all are.

Who should own either exclusively? No one.

I aim stuck on that Idea in this post because recently people have began to claim land out of "historical evidence" that it belongs to them (maybe because they have ran out of other reasons to claim the land), also because this is the reason (and the fact that the Jews helped the allied war effort, many forget that the arabs helped as well) why Israel has been given to the Jews and not to the Arabs fe by the Brittish.

Most nations claim their existance out of historical events, or the denial of those historical events. For example: the United States was founded on the genocide of the native americans and colonial opportunism of European nations. After Colombus "discovered" India, I mean america: Europeans slaughtered the native population of North and South America. This means that this historical event has direct impact on reality and why nation X is claimed by Y people.

The other big problem for many nations is identity: this usually defines the people who live in a nation by their equality in culture. Recently this has become a problem in many nations, for example: the acceptance in the US that a black american should be president (especially if you rememeber the fact that the descendants of african immigrants were for a long time not even considered to be american). The acceptance of the fact that the US is still a "christian nation" despite what is written in the american constitution about secularity of the state.

What is US culture? European culture, America is despite what many say a heritage of Europeans. Almost everything in america is influenced by Europeans, even the most important buildings are build with european architecture (not to forget that the most important building/statue in america is in fact French) and not to forget the language americans speak.

To who did America belong a couple of years ago? Immigrated Europeans.

To who does America belong now? Immigrants from a previous century (African and European, but still mostly European).

If I were to immigrate to america right now and get an american passport would I be an american instantly? If true, what would define me as an american? My passport?

It is said the we are a Christian nation. Does that mean we should expel all the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus?

Americans don't expell them, they mostly ignore them (except for jews who have much influence in the US): look at the american hollidays to understand what I m saying Public holidays in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is an American? We all are.
Who should "own" America? Should it be the British, the Italians, the Africans?

No, you re not all americans ... (You seem to have forgotten the nationality "Mexicans")

Illegal Immigration IS A CRIME!
America's illegal immigration dilemma can't be deported - CSMonitor.com
Q&A: Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy : NPR

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes you re right about the canaanites, but from what I understand it was not exclusively under egyptian rule/occupation (but under egyptian influence: It seems they traded with Egyptians and the Syrrians). It s also clear that the Canaanites where not egyptians or syrrians, but a separate people. So far the "historical" claim of the Egyptians or the Syrrians or other surrounding countries of today to the land. As the Philistines invaded the land they intermarried with the canaanites, getting their seperate identities lost. This seems to strengthen the claims of the Israelites? Or is this a wrong assumption? What is unclear to me, is how palestinians are often categorised in the same way: since many palestinians are ascendants from people who re from neighbouring countries, it seems to weaken the claim of "palestinians" (as they ve been described today is not a group of people with the same identity) being the real ascendants.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that Palestinians are, or should be, a homogeneous group. They should have a distinct identity. Who should "own" the land. Should it be the Arab/Muslim group or should it be the Jewish group. What about the Christians.

Palestine was, and is, a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi religious society. Politically Palestine has been in constant flux. However over time there has been a group of people who have stayed, intermarried, put down roots and have formed an indigenous population that is anything but homogeneous. Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike were living in their homeland. And they are all Palestinians.

Who should "own" America? Should it be the British, the Italians, the Africans? It is said the we are a Christian nation. Does that mean we should expel all the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus?

Who is an American? We all are.

Who is a Palestinian? They all are.

Who should own either exclusively? No one.

I aim stuck on that Idea in this post because recently people have began to claim land out of "historical evidence" that it belongs to them (maybe because they have ran out of other reasons to claim the land), also because this is the reason (and the fact that the Jews helped the allied war effort, many forget that the arabs helped as well) why Israel has been given to the Jews and not to the Arabs fe by the Brittish.

Most nations claim their existance out of historical events, or the denial of those historical events. For example: the United States was founded on the genocide of the native americans and colonial opportunism of European nations. After Colombus "discovered" India, I mean america: Europeans slaughtered the native population of North and South America. This means that this historical event has direct impact on reality and why nation X is claimed by Y people.

The other big problem for many nations is identity: this usually defines the people who live in a nation by their equality in culture. Recently this has become a problem in many nations, for example: the acceptance in the US that a black american should be president (especially if you rememeber the fact that the descendants of african immigrants were for a long time not even considered to be american). The acceptance of the fact that the US is still a "christian nation" despite what is written in the american constitution about secularity of the state.

What is US culture? European culture, America is despite what many say a heritage of Europeans. Almost everything in america is influenced by Europeans, even the most important buildings are build with european architecture (not to forget that the most important building/statue in america is in fact French).

To who did America belong a couple of years ago? Immigrated Europeans.

To who does America belong now? Immigrants from a previous century (African and European, but still mostly European).

If I were to immigrate to america right now and get an american passport would I be an american instantly? If true, what would define me as an american? My passport?

It is said the we are a Christian nation. Does that mean we should expel all the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus?

Americans don't expell them, they mostly ignore them (except for jews who have much influence in the US): look at the american hollidays to understand what I m saying Public holidays in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that the world has not been a place where justice reigned supreme. I still cannot buy a bottle of Mogan David on Sunday morning in the US.

There are two scenarios here and neither is speculation. Both are based on actual experience. One is everyone living together in peace for hundreds of years. The other is decades of death and destruction with no peace in sight.

Personally I am in the peace camp.

 

[Munin]

I know that the world has not been a place where justice reigned supreme. I still cannot buy a bottle of Mogan David on Sunday morning in the US.

There are two scenarios here and neither is speculation. Both are based on actual experience. One is everyone living together in peace for hundreds of years. The other is decades of death and destruction with no peace in sight.

Personally I am in the peace camp.

I fear that we re in the second scenario (the death and destruction), war needs idiots and with democracy in place we ve proven that we have the perfect instrument to ellect them. Even hitler was ellected, Bush then again proved us that waging war can be "popular" even after we learned the lessons of WWII (at least some people learned lessons from that conflict).

Luckely we still have the real weapons of mass destruction (the real existing nuclear ones you know), they keep the idiots from making big wars ... since the result of such a war would be too big for them to handle.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst I d say ... (we re arming a new superpower with money our money, who knows what China the world's biggest dictatorship will do with all the economic and technological stimulus it gets from the west?)

 

[trailertrash]

Is it because they re being treated better?
Is it because they re not religious nutcases?
Is it because they don't attack their fellow citizens?
Is it because they re stupid/weak enough to live in a country that isn't their own?
Is it because they have the same religion as the inhabitants of the country that occupies them?
Is it because the countries who fought the war with Israel couldn't recognize defeat if it would slap them in the face?
Is it because Israelis were stupid not to expell all arabs?
Is it ...


Yeah Hi, The big difference in the Middle East is ignorance. There are many areas of great improvement recently but too many are illiterate and/or are influenced by those of their elders who have know naught but fear in their lives. Add to this the vast possibilities for support made possible by natural resources and the involvement of other nations who desire those. Now consider the great differences in cultural patterns and find that more, many of those in that part of the world are effectively still in the 11th century (imagine 11th century guys with AK47's) and lastly the religion which, as all others have done, gone off track, distorted God's word and provided by this a basis for those opportunistics of ill will.

It will take time, three more generations at least, for any real change and that will come from and by those European and American third generation Muslims who return to the countries of their parents origins, spreading the results of their educations about the land, asking questions that know one ever heard before.

Where there is a vaccum in good government crime will take over...
Where there is a lack of good religious practice Satan will take this too...
Where there is ignorance, fools will rise bringing false promise and hope...
Where fools lead ignorance will follow!

All citizens of the world have the responsibility, an equal share to each, to insure that GOOD prevails in all areas of life. Further those who know this must never capitulate or defer to the lessor will of Satan. This can only be accomplished through education land spiritual maturity for these both close the door firmly against violence.

Satan is alive and well in the world and our ignorance is his great joy.

Israel is wrong to take by force land which was owned by other men. Israel errs greatly in thinking they have any rights over and above those of any others. The persistent struggle which we witness now is the result of one group taking by force the property of their neighbors. But there is blame enough for us all. Palestine is not guilt free in her responses. Everyone has to have changes of heart. This is what religion is supposed to be for. Redresses are due to many. They will never be realized by killing or jealousy. God is patient and waits for even the slowest of us to begin to understand. Sometimes it is a great mistake to wait for governments to accomplish anything. Each of us must make either peace or war. Each of us is equal in this. It is personal. It is ours to make happen, or not.

We must go forward as children who have not yet been subjugated by testosterone. This is no joke. Consider the eunuch who lives in peace with others.

OK so how do I know all this since I live far away in the mountains of the north? Easy. There are no ignorant people here. Those types die fast before they can do any damage to others. We are free of ignorance therefore we cannot be dictated to by fools. Well that is the way of it friends. Just plain stupidity. I'd like to take a terrorist bear hunting. The bear sure as hell ain't afraid of him and will waste no time saying so. Then the terrorist will figure out that no one gives a shit for his crap and he'll settle down and learn to live.

TT