ok. that certainly gives us the right to kill them all. what method should we use? should we look for history of that?

According to right wing Zionists like USMARINE101, Palestinian are incapable of havign legitimate national aspirations. All they obsess about 24/7 is how to destroy Israel.

After all, what else could they possibly want?

If citingfrom a member of the PLO Executive Committee to represent all Palestinians, then surely one can quote Yousef Falay, or Avigdor Liberman.

What Arafat asserted in his biography was clearly an exaple of a man with an inflated ego gloating about his sense of importance. Ben Gurion stated as early as 1914, that the Palestinians were a national movement.

USMARINE101 has gotten hold of some erroneos information. The meme about "no such thing as a Palestinian" is a fraud. The Joan Peters book "From Time Immemorial" has been toroughly debunked.

Arabs coming into the 20th century were largely tribal and not fitted yet to the Western concept of Nation-State. This is part of the reason the Zionist have so easily toyed with them.

But the Arabs were most defintely in Palestine for thousands of years and have a valid claim on the land. The Biritsh Mandate was supposed to shepherd the Arab tribes into a Westpahalian style nation-state based on the ever popular "self-determination". But that was undermined by the desire of European Jews to get hold of the land first.

USMARINE please stop embarrassing yourself. You know next to nothing regarding the peoples of this area in the Middle East. Believe it or not, and to the contrary of the brainwashing you underwent by reading the ramblings of Zionist Modern Historians, you can actually tell a Palestinian from a Syrian or Lebanese just by looking at him/her.

a US Marine.
He's a hasbara troll who visits all the blogs that have Israel as a subject.
Sometimes he calls himself Marine 703 or some other number.

Youre seriously rattle USMARINE. Not a single one fo your posts has been on topic.

The same Palestinians who were decscnedents of the Hebrews who later converted to Chritisnity and Islam.

The argument about who are and who are not a people is a philosophical one, but entirely meaningless. Jews consider themselves a people, and they are welcome to do so, but that doesn't designate them any legal status.

The Palestinians have a right to Palestine, becasue they have lived there for many centuries and held title to the land.

The PLO was a resitance movement and hence was never intended to represent a state, mush in the way that the Irgun, Stern or Haganah didn't. The PA was founded to do precisely that, represent the Palestinian nation.

>> Most leaders of the PLO were from the elsewhere in the region, Arafat for example was an Egyptian

So what? Most of Israel's leaders are from elsewhere. Ben-Gurion was Polish as was Menachem Begin. Shamir, Meir etc were born in Russia. Was it a mistake therefore, that these people were recognized as representatives of the local Jewish population?

The idea that Arabs were not in Palestine concurrent with and long before Zionist Jews is a proven fraud. Don't be so gullible.

But if you persist in buying into the propaganda, try this on for size: Arabia is still closer to Plaestine than Russia, the Ukraine and Europe, where the Jewish colonists came from.

No, you uncultured, unlearned mouth piece. Here is a quick lesson that im sure you'll learn nothing from: the area, and contrary to your whimsically narrow belief, has had hundreds of civilizations that inhabited it. From the Canaanites, to the Babylonians, to the Assyrians, to the Hebraic tribes, Romans, Greeks, Phoenician, Achaeans or the people who lived in Anatolia aka Troy(recent archeological discoveries have showed that after the Greeks conquered Troy, the Achaens dispersed and settled in different regions. One of the regions that they possibly settled in is present day Palestine. And they called themselves "Philistines". How do we know this? Because the Philistines appear right after the invasion of Troy and their bronze works and pottery look almost identical to the ones found in many different Achaen pockets in Anatolia).

So the whole region isn't composed of just Arabs, as you try to proclaim. When the Arabs came into the region, it was already inhabited by many different peoples. They invaded and settled, and the melange diversified.

Read: the people in Palestine have been in Palestine for thousands of years. Some even before Jews. The people are a melange of civilizations. Its not as idiotically simple as you put it: a bunch of arabs came and invaded so we dont have palestinians but arabs blablalbla. ffs go read something.

Great, im being lectured from a USMARINE about the ancestry of my people.

Very simple question there USMARINE, since you seem to be the expert on the origins of the people of the Levant(im guessing not more than 2 books read on the subject): do the Lebanese or Palestinians look like Khalijis?

Well since SOME of them look like Khalijis as you've just admitted, and since you explained that groups of them affiliate their ancestry to non-Arab peoples, why are you still contradicting yourself and saying that all of the Palestinians stem from the Arab peninsula?

Why are you pointing out that they look like the rest of the people of the region when i asked you whether they looked like Khalijis? Trying to shy away from answering the precise question are we? And of course they will bear some similarities to the rest of the region's people because of proximity, no need to state the obvious silly. BUT you can still differentiate between a Palestinian and a Lebanese when you're taking a walk in Beirut for instance.

Oh what a hypocrite :D, we both know that prior to 1946 there was nothing called Jordan and it was only fabricated to house the ousted Palestinians, silly. Why are still bringing the subject of Jordan up when it plays against you. Palestinians will look like Jordanians because Jordanians are original Palestinians ousted from their lands. Just like the Palestinians in the camps of Lebanon look like the Palestinians of Gaza :D. This is really too funny.

I agree; you are probably right. Time will tell.

National Review Online
May 21, 2011

Borderline Treachery

Obama proposes leaving Israel indefensible.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Would that the president of the United States were as worried about Arizona’s border as he is about “Palestine’s.”

There was less fanfare about this latest Obama oration on the future of the Middle East, staged at Foggy Bottom, than there was about his 2009 Cairo speech. It was, however, every bit as delusional, and twice as treacherous.

As for the delusional, “Arab Spring” devotees are thrilled that the president has morphed into his predecessor on the Democracy Project — the enterprise in which future generations of American taxpayers go deeper into hock as our tapped-out government borrows more Chinese billions in order to stimulate the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the few shovel-ready projects President Obama has managed to find (and as a union, the Brothers make the SEIU look like the Jaycees). There is cruel irony in the Arab Spring hallucination, though, evidenced by this bit of rhetorical flourish: “Through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in six years.”

As the president utters his paeans to nonviolence, Egyptians and Iraqis continue slaughtering their religious minorities, and Bashar Assad, the “reformer,” murders his Syrian subjects in the street with the help of his friends at Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization whose day job is running the Lebanese government. The democracy fetish that gave Hezbollah and Hamas thugs the patina of political legitimacy is about to place Egypt under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is itching to deep-six the treaty that has kept peace with Israel for 30 years. Speaking of Israel, it is recovering from a weekend in which thousands of “peaceful protesters” stormed four of its borders. Meanwhile, Iraq, which is touted by Arab Spring enthusiasts — and now even the Obama Left — as a Democracy Project success story, just announced that it will show its gratitude to American soldiers and taxpayers by expanding military ties with Iran, the world’s leading facilitator of Islamist terror. Pakistan, when not holding memorial services for Osama bin Laden, is exploding in bloodshed. The Obama administration is pleading with the Taliban to come to the negotiating table; you may recall that the Taliban is the reason our troops are still in Afghanistan preventing the collapse of its fragile “democracy” and the reopening of a safe haven for al-Qaeda. And al-Qaeda’s current safe haven, Yemen, is the site of a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. So much for nonviolence.

The president stumbled into a bracing truth when he compared the change achieved by the people in the region, on the one hand, and by terrorists on the other. The change both are seeking is the same: the creation of sharia societies. Obama and Democracy Project promoters like to frame the Arab Spring as the ultimate rejection of al-Qaeda. But it is, at most, a discovery that there are better tactical routes to the promised land than al-Qaeda’s crude brutality. That promised land is not Western liberalism; it is Islam in all its repression of free speech, religious liberty, and equality — American principles the president spoke of his boundless determination to promote, while avoiding a single mention of Islam or sharia, which make achieving those principles a pipedream in this region.

Speaking of the promised land, the real one, Israel, is apparently getting smaller. This was Obama’s news-making treachery, and its ramifications are impossible to predict, other than that they bode ill.

For the first time in history, an American president explicitly called for a settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict premised on the 1967 borders — i.e., the 1949 armistice line, the tenuous state of play before Israel captured the West Bank (actually, Judea and Samaria), the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights in the Arab war of aggression to destroy the Jewish state. To be sure, Obama said that there would also have to be territorial “swaps” to satisfy security concerns. This caveat, though, is cold comfort for Israel, America’s only true ally in the region.

To begin with, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to point out, the 1967 borders are “indefensible.” That is why they have never been the starting point of U.S. policy, even though they always hover over negotiations. In its implacable hostility to Israel, the “international community” chooses to forget how and why the Arab side first grabbed, then lost, the territory in question. For nearly a half century since the adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 242, the Washington Institute’s Robert Satloff explains, American administrations of both parties have called for eventual Israeli withdrawal to “secure and recognized” borders, a phrase interpreted as “not synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries.”

By his new articulation, President Obama would deny Israel crucial negotiating leverage. If there is to be a peace settlement (which there cannot be until there are two parties that want peace), Israel must have the latitude to make territorial concessions in exchange for reliable concessions on security and other matters. It cannot be coerced into accepting an Obama-imposed fait accompli that leaves it fatally vulnerable to enemies whose ferocity is only encouraged by this bullying.

Bear in mind that what are called the “1967 borders” were never agreed-upon national boundaries. The Jewish claim on Judea and Samaria has roots in antiquity. This fact was intentionally obfuscated by Obama’s earlier suggestion in Cairo that Israel’s creation was an ill-conceived payback for the Holocaust, as it is by the convention of referring to Judea and Samaria as “the West Bank,” the name Jordan gave them when it seized and occupied them at the conclusion of Israel’s war of independence. The Arabs, of course, never created a Palestinian state when it was within their power to do so. Thus, the final disposition of this territory has never been resolved. It is a subject for negotiations, not predetermined Palestinian sovereignty.

When, in the decades after the 1967 war, Israelis built homes in Judea and Samaria, they were building on ancient Jewish land. Hundreds of thousands of them now live in the thriving communities that the world, in its glossary of delegitimization, calls “settlements.” But recognizing how dramatically conditions on the ground had changed since 1967, President Bush declared in 2004 that that there could not realistically be “a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” As the Washington Times’ Eli Lake reports, Prime Minister Netanyahu — who was sandbagged by Obama’s newly announced policy only a day before his scheduled meeting with the president — will now press for a reaffirmation of this U.S. commitment, reminding Obama that Bush’s conclusion was overwhelmingly supported by Congress.

Not only is Obama’s new position on the borders a sellout of this American commitment to Israel; it is an adoption of Hamas’s position. This is palpably alarming for several reasons. The first involves rewarding terrorism, the Islamic practice of which Obama purports to be eradicating. Hamas (i.e., the Palestinian branch of the same Muslim Brotherhood that is poised to take the reins in neighboring Egypt) remains pledged to Israel’s destruction. In his speech, Obama paid lip service to the pie-in-the-sky assumption that Hamas will ultimately come to see terrorism as futile (even as the jihadists reap the benefits of practicing terror). But he did not demand that Palestinians convincingly renounce terror and accept without reservation Israel’s permanent existence as a Jewish state. This president’s demands are made only on Israel; Hamas gets hopey-changey cajoling.

Because it will never recognize Israel’s right to exist, Hamas’s support for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders does not translate into support for the dreamy two-state solution. It is a way station to Hamas’s goal of a one-state solution. This is to be reached by an inside/outside strategy: The newly formed “Palestine” would continue to pressure Israel with terror attacks from without, while within Israel, Islamists would exploit democracy, assembling the critical mass of Israeli Arabs, leftists, and returned Palestinian “refugees” needed to destroy Israel’s character as a Jewish state.

Then there is the matter of timing. The president chose to announce his new position on the 1967 borders only days after the Palestinian Authority — run by Fatah, the “moderates” who maintain their own terrorist wing, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades — formed a unity government with Hamas. Again, while from one side of his mouth the president claims the Arab Spring is a rejection of terror, from the other he tells the terrorists that their methods work.

In the course of insisting that the Palestinians must have their own sovereign state, Obama also slipped in the stipulation that it must be a contiguous state. Oughtn’t it to go without saying that Gaza does not abut Judea and Samaria? You can’t make them “contiguous” without ceding to the Palestinians the swath of Israel that would be needed to connect them.

To be fair, Obama is not the first to use this disturbing formulation. Bush State Department officials, who often seemed every bit as eager to placate the Palestinians, used to say “contiguous,” too. Still, hearing this word from a U.S. president who has already called for a territorial contraction that would make their country indefensible, and who seems decidedly blasé about its contiguity, Israelis cannot be blamed for wondering whether the land “swaps” Obama has in mind will carve Israel into separate slices.

For all the appalling things Obama did say, however, the worst was what he didn’t. In the greater scheme of things, borders are a subordinate issue, and they’d be a trivial one were it not for Israel’s existential security problems. Many rival countries have territorial disputes, but they either live with them or settle them because they do not question each other’s right to exist as sovereign nations. The Palestinians, by contrast, do not accept Israel’s existence. They do not want peace and they will not renounce terror. And why would they? Terror is serving them quite well, the “international community” having embraced the terrorists while making pariahs of the region’s only true democracy and beacon of human rights.

An American president who really wanted to outline the only worthy settlement of this intractable conflict could have given a very short speech. The Palestinians must accept Israel, they must convincingly renounce terrorism (none of this “resistance” legerdemain), and they must drop the ludicrous demand for a right of return that would effectively overrun Israel. If they did those three things, the territorial boundaries would take care of themselves, and Obama could go back to not worrying about America’s borders.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

© National Review Online 2011. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267796/borderline-treachery-andrew-c-mccarthy

A lot of Zionist paranoia in that article. Typical. Expected. It shows pretty well why the Palestinians won't get much until they get some power. And that will be long in the future. Only the US could do anything for the Palestinians. And that would mean violently twisting Israel's arm until it cried "uncle" and no US President dares do that given the balance of forces in Washington. So forget it. Nothing much will happen. It will take decades, perhaps a century, before Israel fades away or whatever. Demography is not on its side, long term.

Beyond the Palestinian issue, returning to the 1967 borders would include returning the Golan Heights to Syria and Shebaa Farms to Lebanon(?). It is often ignored how much of this issue also revolved around water rights, which is why Israel will not return those regions. That issue must also be addressed in order for a compromise to be reached.

cut and paste articels from the NRO.

It appears BKAPLOVITZ isn't even trying anymore to make an argument.

BTW BKAPLOVITZ, no one is reasing these, so youre wasting your time.

"Indefensible" is an indefensible intellectual fraud.

It's really simple: How many times have there been shooting wars between Israel and the Arabs?

Answer please.

And of those instances how many times did Israel successfully defend its borders?

I think you will find that the answer is 100%. EVERY TIME.

Thus, Israel is proven to be defensible.

From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog
May 24, 2011

In Spite of Obama’s Ambush, Netanyahu Still Goes Home a Winner

By Jonathan S. Tobin

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today will illustrate a fact that was largely obscured by the controversy over President Obama’s Middle East policy speech. The Jewish state enjoys overwhelming and bipartisan support in this country.

Cynics will ascribe the support to the “Israel Lobby”—a.k.a. AIPAC—which has been holding its annual conference in the capital the last couple of days — or some other pro-Zionist force. But what conspiracy theorists like Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (authors of The Israel Lobby) and their media ilk never seem to understand is that the cabal they believe manipulates U.S. policy is so large it encompasses both major political parties and an overwhelming majority of the American people.

As some have noted, the Republican Party seems to be trending more pro-Israel and the Democrats less in recent years. Yet as Alana reported earlier this morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer both implicitly rebuked the president in their speeches to AIPAC. The reservoir of support for Israel and even for Netanyahu, who has again become something of a lightening rod for those who dislike his country, is strong both in Congress and the country. In spite of the fact that Obama specifically chose to ambush Netanyahu by lobbing his bombshell about the 1967 lines a day before the Israeli arrived in Washington for a visit, then—an almost unprecedented discourtesy for an ally—the prime minister will be loudly cheered today when he explains why Israel will not and cannot be forced back to those insecure borders.

Obama’s policy shift has made Israel’s diplomatic position more difficult and has presented an undeserved gift to the Palestinian Authority, which is determined in any event to torpedo negotiations by going to the United Nations to acquire a state without recognizing Israel’s legitimacy or promising an end to the conflict. But the alliance, based on both common values and a level of security cooperation that is so entrenched that it is almost beyond the capacity of any president now to destroy it, is still solid.

It is important to keep things in perspective. Last week, over at Jewish Ideas Daily, Elliot Jager wrote about the difficulties that David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister encountered on a trip to the United States in 1962 to meet President Kennedy. Kennedy wouldn’t even receive Ben Gurion at the White House, insisting instead on a “private” meeting at a New York hotel. Ben Gurion did not walk away with much from the summit. JFK prevaricated about selling—not giving—Israel anti-aircraft missiles (he would later agree to the sale) and demanded that the tiny Jewish state consider admitting Arab refugees. Kennedy and the State Department hoped that such a gesture would mollify Israel’s hostile Arab neighbors who were not prepared to accept it even within the borders that are now associated with the date 1967.

In spite of the criticism he has taken for having the chutzpah to talk back to Obama, Netanyahu will return home with the cheers of Congress still echoing in his ears secure in the knowledge that there is only so far that the president can go in his campaign to pressure Israel. That is a feeling that David Ben Gurion would have loved to experience.

--Posted By By Jonathan S. Tobin 05.24.2011 - 10:24 AM

Copyright Commentary Magazine 1997-2011 All Rights Reserved

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/24/in-spite-of-obama's-ambush-netanyahu-still-goes-home-a-winner/

1. Are you suggesting that even after comming to an agreement, Israel will continmue to steal Palestinian land?

2. There was nver a war between East Palestine and Little Satan.

3. How many Iranian protesters do believe have been killed on the streets?

>> Failing to hold Arab League accountable for the 3 No's of Khartoum

3 No's of Khartoum have been replaced by the Arab Peace Initiative, which Israel has said no to.

>> failure to soft power Palestine into renouncing the destruction of a democratic member of UN

The Quartet has judged that the PA have succeeded in every aspect of denouncing violence against Israel.

>> failure to renounce choice bits of official OBL loving terrorists like HAMAS' intolerant charter

Yes but the joke is that although Arab, the Saudi tyranny does effectively nothing for the Palestinians and is quite content to see Israel lord it over them. Arabia is the US's prime "house Arab", a Muslim nation under our thumb, but completely. One that has supported all the Arab dictators in the area, particularly Mubarak, its great friend. Money to al-Qaeda, not much in fact, is simply payoff money, the sort a nightclub would pay the Mafia to stay in business. Israel like Arabia a lot and so does Washington. The Muslim nation they don't like is Iran, since it isn't under their thumb.

YAWN. Please re read the original commentary again. The points are valid, fully crunk and - this is the hot part - simply undeniable.

Unlike a certain follow up in the heated moment of yet another underwhelming emo heavy fact free involuntary response to stimuli

True. Always tho't that was one of his more endearing charms! LOL

Israel would never accept a one state solution. If it would, I have no doubt Palestinians would jump at it. It isn't their lack of smarts, it is Israel's fear, knowing a one state solution would bring Israel to an end rather soon. It is Israel that won't allow a one state solution.

The Dome of the Rock might stand on the site of the First and Second Jewish Temple, but it was the Romans that destroyed those temples. The ruins are not of any Jewish Temples but of Roman structures that were built there. There have been no remnants of the Temples discovered. There simply is no archaeological evidence yet discovered. Archaeologists have come up with a few false alarms, insisting they’ve found something, only to discover that the findings are Roman, not Jewish.

The Western Wall was also a Roman structure that Jews began praying at relatively recently.

Even in the City of David excavation, the director of the project admitted they have found no evidence that David or Abraham ever existed. They don’t even know what David’s name really was.

Although his credentials and a historian are highly suspect, seeing as he also wrote about Jesus, without any evince of his existence.
And yes, he did write about the Jewish War and the destruction of the Second Temple, but again, he produced no evidence and none of that evidence exists today.
Maybe the Vatican does something deep in its vaults, but that's a big maybe.

GILADG you are repeating the same lie on 2 occasions,. The Palestinians are descendants fo the Hebrews, so that are a great deal older that 150 years.

>> All that Israel wants regarding the Temple Mount and the remnants of the First and Second Temples is to leave things alone. Don't dig, don't destroy anything, just leave it alone.

On the contrary. Israel has been aching to dig underneath the Dome of the Rock and excavate.

The Palestinians are no terrified as to what might be found in the ground, they are terrified of seeing as scared religious site desecrated by Israel. After al, Israel have been digging in East Jerusalem at the City of David project site for year and come up with nothing. In fact, archaeologists have been digging for close to a century and come up with nothing.

There is no evidence that any archaeological evidence that ties the site to Jews has been removed. That is simply paranoid conspiracy.

AS with Abraham and David, no dependence has yet been produced that Solomon even existed, so whatever it is they call the Solomon Stable area is pure speculation.

So on one hand you claimed that there is archaeological evidence to support your thesis, but when challenged, the best you can came up with is that it might be there, but we haven't fond it...which is a common theme.

The world is supporting the historic nationalist aspirations of an indigenous population based on justice, morality and law. Judaism isn't going anywhere and the creation of a Palestinian state is no threat to either Judaisn or Israel.

After all, Israel was created in 1948, and it's creation had nothing to do with what migh have taken place 3,500 years ago.

Between the year 100 AD and 1800 AD, the land was controlled by about a dozen different nations and empires. So, by your twisted rationale, they too have a claim to the land including Iran (Persian), Italy, (Roman), Greece, Syria (Assyrian), Iraq (Babylonian), Saudi Arabia (Muslim) etc. etc…

to give in to despair, which is what seems to be happening to the left/liberal voice these days, is to bolster the Israeli right wing.

it's not all up to the US. there is a political opposition in Israel, and there is the potential for the Israeli peace camp to vote the Likud coalition out of office, especially if the perception in Israel becomes that Netanyahu's tactics are backfiring. Israel seems convinced that it needs US aide to survive, so let Obama rattle that cage and see what happens.

if Obama has set this up to draw the full public arrogance of Netanyahu, and I think maybe he has -- his aides mentioned "off the record" that he thinks Netanyahu is unable to give concessions leading to peace -- then this is a game still in progress. I wish Obama the best. And it bothers me a lot that not only is he reaping a whirlwind of criticism from the right, from the status-quo Israeli supporters, he is also coming in for a lot of criticism from the left.

by-the-by, I love the great reception he is getting in Britain! It's not every visiting head of state that gets to take tea with the Queen and then stay on for a couple of days with her and Philip at their place. That vulgarian Netanyahu could only dream of being received with such honor :>)

Just a bunch of religious extremists in his coalition who want to take Israel back to the 17th century.

Nothing archaic about that right UNMARINE?

As do any other American citizens.

Hamas and Fatah. Hamas are not American citizens and have no reason or oblgation to support the US, especialyl seeing as the US has worked for decades to undermine the both of them.

No one is jealous of you being a marine, because you were never a marine.

Walt stated the obivious and the fact that the diatribes posted by USMARINE101 are off topic and nothing more and a desperate effort to muddy the waters by spamming a discussion with copious cut and paste efforts.

Of course, there is no Aryan Lobby, though the Israeli Lobby would be the closest we have to one, seeing as Zionism is such a blatantly racist and supremacist ideology.
It is interesting that you should accuse Walt of harboring a barely hidden neo-National-Socialist agenda, when the best definition of fascism I've come across (in 'the Nature of Fascism') is the belief in an organic community which must achieve a certain state of being it previously held.
Doesn't sound like Zionism at all!
You clearly have never read the “The Lobby”, or you would know how false it is to suggest that it portrays the Jewish Americans as an evil force. In fact, Walt and Meareshimer point out repeatedly throughout the thesis that the Lobby us entirely legitimate.

Needless to say, it is a blatant lie to suggest that Walt and Meareshimer have ever suggest that Israel must be destroyed. That's why you hasbaratats have failed so miserably over the five years, in spite of your best efforts to demonize and assassinate W&M's reputations and standing in the community. Becaue your attacks are not based on anything they have ever said or written.

And five years from now, you'll still be trying.

>> Majority of them, are, however, kept forcibly in the concentration camps by the Abbas and Hamas regimes.

No, they are kept in concentration camps, the largest one being Gaza, by Israel.

>> The concentration camps in Lebanon and Syria must be dismantled as well.

They will be soon, and the refugees will return to their homes. Patience young master.
The prisoners should be set free and allowed to resettle and build homes, on the land that belongs to them.

That apartheid perpetrated by Israelis against their Arabs must end and it will, by non violent resistance. Israel exist only on the European and American money.

This is the one-state solution for Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem and Israel. One binational state and a democracy for all.

He's not even trying to mask his repugnant and vile racism. In his mind, they are the world's biggest losers, all eight million of them.

USMARINE101's fascism is alive and well, and yet people wonder why there is no peace in the region?

"Pandering to the Palestinians." Should one laugh or cry at such a statement? I think this poor, pathetically confused Marine needs to read his Finkelstein, if he has the guts to do so.