[Hippikos]

"complete strangers" - the Jews were already there and a substantial majority

Interesting how the Zionist propaganda can distort reality. There was no majority of Jews in Palestine when Herzl started the Zionist movement in 1896 with his book “Der Judenstaat”. During that time less than 5% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

"would take over her house" - have the UN partition the area previously partitioned by everyone else because it was useless and unwanted

It certainly was not useless and unwanted for the people who lived there originally and see their land being giving away to strangers because of some improper feel of guilty.

"exiled her to the backyard shed" - because she refuses to share the area peacefully

What would you do if your land and house was taken away by strangers?

"and even there has to give up half of that living space" - after she unilaterally attacks them

Again, sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. You cannot invade and occupy land without risking action from the opposite party. But I understand that’s difficult to grasp for people whos land has never been occupied.

Zionist propaganda never stops to point out that the Arabs want to destroy the State of Israel using this as a tool to establish the Greater State of Israel.

Fact is that if Israel wants peace with its Arab neighbours then it can achieve it.

In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006).

Peace can be achieved in the ME if Israel really wants. They and US are calling the shots but instead use every excuse to inflame the situation (Lebanon) even when it means that it foolishly hurt their own position.

This is what Israeli Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24) wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral waris based on selective and short-term memory, on an introverted world view, and on double standards." The reasons include the Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost daily violations of the Lebanese border for surveillance: "a border violation is a border violation." The reasons also include the historical record: the four earlier Israeli invasions since 1978, and their grim consequences for Lebanese. And we should also not forget the pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel repeatedly carried out bombing and other provocations in Lebanon, apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the pretext of the assassination attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out. It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hezbollah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had no more credible pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

Zionists always complains about violence, in the meantime being guilty of constant provocation, violence, brutalilty, racism and surpression themselves.