The extent of information shared by all here is impressive, nonetheless.

Arafat and the PLO – wildly popular among Palestinians in the 1970s (though there were groups outside the PLO) – endorsed implicitly and then explicitly, the 2-state solution. You are correct of course, that there were not a half-million Jews colonizing the West Bank at the time. Nonetheless, the same principle holds. As the world almost unanimously decided back in 67 that Israel belongs behind its pre-67 borders, the world still holds to this position. That is to say, Israel must repatriate its settlers on the WB. Likewise, your other noted Israeli transgressions.

But you’ve put the cart before the horse. These transgressions came AFTER the ’67 attack on Palestine, not before it. Be that as it may, if the US and Israel will not allow a second state – then you are suggesting they will allow one state of Jews and Pals? That’s a very confusing and unlikely argument. So if you are arguing this then it seems you are really arguing for full Israeli hegemony. In the final analysis, you are willing to sacrifice what’s left of Palestine for some positive or negative principle you have yet to outline.

when palestinians OK’d a two state solution, there weren’t 500K ‘settlers’ in the second state.
there was no wall built on their land, siege of gaza, slaughter in gaza of a few mo’s ago, 11K abductees in jails, etc.
also no US prez had proclaimed that j’lem remain undivided.

if this doesn’t prove to you that the second state is not available and to make sure of that ’67 war waged so that the second state never comes into being then i don’t know what other indications do u want to be convinced that US/israel will never allow the second state.
instead of that, you actually accuse us of not caring enough for palestinians because we want one state which wld merely cause more of ‘settling’ and thus loss of land for palestinians.
so, if israel continues its crimes and stealing land, it is critics of irsael
who are guilty for these crimes and not ‘jews’.

by extension one cld even argue that we shld stop exposing israeli crimes because if we don’t, ‘jews’ will take their rage on palestinians.
now i know you are a zionist! And not a small one like chomsky but s’mwhat bigger.
tnx

I have no interest in Alaska beyond making the point.

What I was doing in Jordan had to do with Jordanian views on recent events in the wider region. Really, Max – despite what you may think, Alaskan views on these matters are not interesting.

That European Zionists had no connection with the land there is no doubt. They now DO have a connection to the land, soon approaching the century mark – and most Israelis have now been born there. Palestinians evicted by the Jews are entitled to all their land and property in what is now Israel whether evicted in 47 to 49 or in 67 (or in the constant low level stream of evictions that has continued over the life of that state). That’s international law. The same international law that forbids the removal of the Jews from Israel. I can invoke the right of return because I believe it applies to all parties. If you think Israeli Jews can be removed, then why should the law apply to the Palestinians? Unless you subscribe purely to power politics in which case the Palestinians are surely on the losing end.

I have never argued that no one believes in the one-state solution – only that a minority of Palestinians historically support such a solution. I HAVE argued that Israeli-Jews will not accept being a minority. Politics, economics and demographics may work eventual magic in this regard however so one can’t rule out Jewish acquiesence (sp) later in this century. After all, Jews have a number of immigration options these days and may exercise them. The remainder may have to come to terms with their neighbors.

As I have said many times, the British-led effort to colonize Palestine was wrong (as per the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, for starters), the UN effort at partition was wrong (and by rule, rendered moot by Palestinian rejection), only to have the Jews implement it anyway as much of the world either looked on or supplied the Jews with guns and ammo. The recognition of Israel as a state (never mind ‘the Jewish State’) by the West and East (as you noted – and to be sure, Soviet arms flowed to the Jews thru Soviet occupied Czechoslovakia) was wrong. The admission of Israel to the UN was wrong as Israel failed to repatriate the refugees it created thru ethnic cleansing – their repatriation and recompense a requirement for admission. So there is a century-long history of odious judgment by the world community – or those who pull the strings of the world community.

Thus we are long presented with a situation in need of major repair. I say, let’s not try to twist Palestinians to a view that pleases some inner need for true left justice. The Palestinians have resisted their demise now for more than a century. I back them fully in their resistance. That’s why I made ten necessary points to a just solution at top of the reply section.

If you could outline your points similarly, that would be interesting.

however, the words “goy” and “bastard’ may have been at one time valid symbols but over time have been imbued by our ignorant ancestors with many dysphemistic traits.

“bastard” may have symbolized the fact that the male was born out of wedlock. If it wld have not been imbued with false to fact notions, the word wld be valid symbol.

may be you are right, i shld write ‘goy’ and ‘bastard’ to alert people that the two words limn a false reality.
perhaps we shld be along with ‘jews’ called “nonhebraic” . This label is not corrupted nor pejorative. tnx

Jordan is not, as you say living under Israeli apartheid as the Palestinians are.

I know many people who take pleasure trips to Jordan and they might as well have gone to Alaska in terms of what’s happening in the occupied land.

But perhaps your stories about what’s going on in Jordan would be enlightening.

I’m not sure why you put ‘Jews’ in quotes yet use their Hebrew term for gentiles – goyim.

I am once again submitting that cultural attributes should not be construed as genetic attributes. Jews are not a different species (as are gorillas and chimps), in fact, Jews have various ethnic origins, very much Caucasian in origin, and thus behavior of Jews – even Zionist Jews , cannot really be considered apart from other human behaviors – it’s all cultural. And that would include notions of being a ‘chosen people’ or that the Jewish existential condition is exceptional. These are malleable cultural characteristics.

a gorilla may have killed another gorilla but does a gorilla plot to kill another gorilla? Or a tribe of gorillas plotting to eradicate another gorilla tribe?
no documented case exist, as far as i know, which testifies that a gorilla had killed another.
just like a human, a gorilla cld be psychotic, brain injured and thus cld kill?
but a clazed gorilla cld only kill with bare hands; however, wld other apes, who are very gregarious, stand by and not help break the fight?
methinks, this analyses shows that it is extremely unlikely that a gorilla kills its own.

nature is multivalued; we are part of that nature; thus, we also are multivalued in all of our behavior.
Nature did the best it cld for us and biota. Our genetic pool is part of that nature.
everything shld be alright with ‘jews’ as long they do not compare goyim as part of the nature and selves as a part of supernatural ‘nature’.
whether that is racist or not, it is up to each person to decide what they call such comparison.
but to me, such behavior is antigoyim and this bodes unwell for ‘jews’.
we, being part of nature, and thus innately at least partly ‘evil’, does not occlude probability that we can do less of it.
and the way out is enlightenment. tnx

You present a Zionist = a Jew. Are you an Israeli agent?

While I can’t give you a personal report on Gaza at this time, I can tell you stories about Jordan. Lebanon next.

And you are of course, correct about our descent from Africans. And so too are today’s Africans. We’ve all evolved out of these ancestors.

One can be anti-Zionist for a number of reasons and hate Jews or blacks or whites or whomever. People can be rather selective in their rationalizations, whether typed explicitly on these pages or merely couched in other terms with an occasional slippage in verbiage.

We’ll be waiting. Lots of reports, B99. Pronto.

genetics play a role. But to what degree in any field of panhuman behavior, including mass murder?
and we can’t say that an ethnos is genetically more prone to mass murder than its neighboring ethnos or any other.

so, just perhaps, one cld be called ‘racist’ [or just stupid] if one wld say that russians are genetically more prone to be genocidal than uzbeks.
but i don’t think anybody thinks that deep yet and if one did , one wld then not say such a thing.
it is better to think that we all are genetically screwed up and capable of mass murder.
this may be ‘racist’ since gorillas don’t murder other apes. tnx

as for the genetic pool, i think i wldn’t be here if it wasn’t for blacks of afrika; so, altho of a slavo-romano-illyrian origin, i also must be genetically connected to the darkest afrikani.

as for one being against zionists and at the same being a racist, the conclusion that one is racist rests on the conclusion/accusation that one is an antizionist.
theory proving theory won’t do!
no sane person with evaluative, analytical, and predictive education can be an antizionist or antijewish and thus racist.
an enlightened individual is solely against what a zionist does or says.

in short, such use of language is mere name calling; a kind of voodoo magic. And in my ignorant days i had used namecaling as much as anybody else.

this analyses proves that even ‘zionists’ are not racist; or, rather, it being waste of one’s energies and time in enganging in such behavior.
but even calling s’mone wrong is waste of time. It is much better to simply adduce own facts that wld contradict s’mbody elses facts, conclusions, etc.
in any case, language is important, but only theoretical and cannot ever be proved by more theory, analyses, etc.
theory can be proven only on existential level; on level of doing things. tnx bozhidar balkas vancouver