In the hope that the in the near future rabbis will visit the al-Nakba Museum . P.S: Nakba denial is anti-semitic.

I think that the day we will be able to achieve peace between secular and orthodoxe Jews,your dream will be more realistic and with G-Ds help very near.

to # 29. Although I disagree with most of what you said, I respect your perspective and thank you for keeping the discussion civilized. You may agree that all too often, there are unneccesarry rude and ignorant statements exchanged from both sides. It is true that Haj Amin Al-Huseini was deeply routed in Jeruslaem politics, and his actions were inexcusable. Believe me... Myself, along with most other Palestinians look at him as a poor leader, and a hater of Jews. It is unfortunate that he was able to propogate crimes of hatred.... Indeed he was rumoured to have met with HItler, like many... although this was way before the Holocaust took place.... Nevertheless, he was an open-book and a disgrace in my eyes.... That out of the way now... Does this give an excuse for thousands of armed terrorist gangs (among them future prime ministers of Israel) to commit mass murders. Surely if you know the history you cannot deny the blood that they spilled over what they wanted... A greater Israel, and expulsion of a people to make room for an invading people. Have you heard of the Stern Gang? Hagganah? Irgun? The people responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel, and many village massacres in the North. These Jewish terrorists were responsible for inititing a devise plan to expel the arabs from their own land and to ensure they got their wish. Haj Amin was their only scapegoat.... too bad for the arabs, right? Look,... I just wish you could look beyond your own biased views and opinions. Dig deeper my friend, the Nakba is indeed a reality, and to deny this is to deny any atrocity of equal, greater, or lesser scale.

They don't like to work, study, explore, travel... They will always look for someone to blame in their misery and poverty! It happens hundrets of years and it will be so until they will begin to use their own head and bild their own perception of life instead of being brainwashed in moscue!

Several talkbacks including mine requested to identify your “source” in the Torah. No response from you means you do not have identifiable source with the exception of David Duke hate pamphlets, or the Hezbollah/Hamas trash “literature.” From trash to trash.

John, you appear to be open minded than majority of the talk-backers representing the Palestinian Arab side, but you are using many of the wrong terminology and wrong description of the events. Hagana is not a terrorist organization, but it was established after the 1929 anti-Jewish disturbances and killings by the Palestinian Arabs, Lechi and Stern organization were more radicals, but their target was the British. Dir Yassin occurred as a response to many Dir Yassins perpetrated by the PA Arabs. Convoys of the Haganah bringing food and water to Jerusalem were ambushed and destroyed. The remnants of the convoys are still visible on the side of the road to Jerusalem. Kibbutzim and basses were attacked with sever human and material losses, particularly in 1929 and 1936, but practically permanently. The Nakba occurred due to urging of the PA HQ to let the armed PA to kill the Jewish population, and they will return after the promised victory. A few instances in sensitive areas (like near the Lud airport) the Arab population was removed mostly to the north, but if they wanted thy could go to the West Bank or Lebanon). About 600,000 Arabs remained in the State of Israel, and today their cities and villages are prospering. What would be the fate of the Jewish population if the other side would have won? None of them would remain alive. The German Jews were patriotic Germans, contributed heavily to every aspects of Germany, did not harm the state, and their fate is well known. Thus, can you compare the Holocaust with the Nakba?

Stephen, you appear to be open minded than majority of the talk-backers representing the Israeli side... Come on Steve, you darn well know that there is ignorance on both sides. At least both of us are willing to consider the points of view of opposing sides. We can argue history all day about what took place, or what did not take place. The fact of the matter is that if you are reading from one source (perhaps Bernard Lewis), and I am reading from another (perhaps Edward Said), we may have conflicting opinions. The fact remains that the Zionist vision began as an attempt to expel the Arab population by any means necessary. This is not made up, this is on verbal account of many Jewish scholars, Zionists, etc. from the very beginning. Even the inspirational Theodore Herzl who founded modern Zionism knew what he was up against, and stated this bluntly. The problem with this vision was that it was not the Arabs/Muslims that persecuted Jews in Europe by way of Pogroms, etc. It was Europeans who did so.... So why then do the Arabs of Palestine have to suffer for their persecution? You simply cannot move into a country in overwhelmingly large numbers and shovel off another people in the process. Of course there will be resistance from Arabs, and of course there will be displeasure. Any group would feel the same. The fate of the Palestinians was quite similar to the fate of the Cherokee. If you study American conquest/history you can see a striking resemblance. Just as the Native Indian was not motivated by anti-Europeanism, but rather the fear of displacement, so too was and is the Palestinian. So this entire notion of Palestinian antagonism as a result of sudden anti-Semitism is a fallacy. The Arabs and Jews lived side by side for centuries without conflict, until the conquest of Palestine. Maybe it is that I am biased, you may be correct in stating so. But believe me, we are ALL biased in one way or another. To get off this entre soap box for a moment, we should all try to understand one another... and back to the article, these Imams have set a precedent in doing so... So good for them, let’s hope that other Imams, Rabbis, Priests, Seculars, and other leaders can do the same, and perhaps we will one day live together harmoniously. Am I being overly optimistic when I speak for both peoples??? I hope not. Peace, Salam, and Shalom to all!!

John, you mentioned several issues, and I try to respond to the main issues. I do not remember it well, but it appears, that Theodore Herzel in his book did not propose to push aside the Muslim population of Palestine, but they would be citizens with equal rights. You said that several other recent Israeli authors mentioned the same. Naturally, as in every open society a variety of ideas are expressed, but they are views of various individuals, and cannot be construed as representing the entire nation. You said that countries cannot be overtaken by large number of invaders. It is not a justification, but it happened several time during the history of the ancient Judea/Israel and to many other nations as well. Historically the most decisive was the Roman conquest, which resulted the Diaspora. You are right, the Palestinian Arabs did not persecute the European Jews, and therefore they should not be the suffering side. The desire to return to Zion was perpetuated almost instantly when the Diaspora started. I am sure you are familiar with the expression “Next Year in Jerusalem,” or “If I forget you Jerusalem I should lose my right hand (not a word by word quotation)”, and many other countless quotations with identical thoughts in the ancient prayer books including the Hagadah for Passover. Countless Jews returned to Judea/Israel due to the love of Zion from the early Middle Ages and on, without pogroms or without overt persecutions. You mention that the takeover of Cherokees is similar to the Palestinian situation. The parallel is not correct, since the two state solution exists since the 1948 partition, and it is accepted by the right of the center present day Israeli Government. It was offered officially to the Palestinians over and over again, but unfortunately Arafat and Mahmud Abas both refused to accept it. After the Exodus from Egypt the Jews wandered in the Sinai for 40 years, during which period new leadership emerged whom did not know the slavery. Perhaps the same should happen with the Palestinian leadership (not that all the Israeli leadership is faultless, but they are more ready to compromise), before the two state can harmoniously live together with mutually beneficial coexistance. . With Salam, Shalom, and Peace to everybody.

I am sorry, it should have been 'To John #20 and #38."

is the why and wherefore. there are no universal principles to be got from all this. it is purely self serving. even if the mohammedans learn anything about the potentialities of their position in europe in years to come, the possibilities, it will have no bearing upon the israel thing. what can they learn? that it is possible that if they do all they can to integrate, to become nationals in europe, make contributions etc., etc., that in some distant future this might happen to them. so they are forewarned. as for compassion, the opportunity to show that was when jewish refugees wanted entry to mandatory palestine, the mohammedans were not exactly clamouring were they? as they grow in europe this serves as a warning perhaps, not to take things for granted, but that is all. and it is thus realistic in a mohammedan self-interested way in europe, and the same self-interest (in a different place perhaps) will lead to a claim that the jews of the jewish state are nazis, or some such like. otherwise known as realpolitik.

On and on we go my dear friend. Since this will probably be the last time I rebut on out little debate, you may have the last word if you wish. I will try to counter argue most points one by one. I have copied and pasted a quote from Theodore Herzl’s diary so you can see for yourself, the motivation behind the conquest of Palestine. The quote reads in his words as follows... "When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.” "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl", vol. 1. Given the prior quote I think it is safe to say that the intentions of the Zionist movement from the very beginning was to safely secure the land of Palestine at the expense of the Palestinians, and that this ‘plan’ was the fuel that sparked this everlasting fire of violence. Without diverting on the topic too much, the fate of the Cherokee, as a people who were forcibly exiled (certain tribes) from their land is similar to the fate of the Palestinians. No analogy is perfect, but similar... I do agree with you that countless invaders have, for centuries, occupied Palestine/Israel in bloodshed, and yes it is in no way a justification for sovereignty. This is my point exactly on the issue of the invader (European Jew) expelling and occupying the land of the native inhabitant (Arab). The Nakba commemorates the land that was forcibly taken from the Palestinians with no compensation, full stop. To deny the Nakba would be to deny any other atrocity committed by any other people. .. On your point about the two-state solution; I wish it could exist but it does not, and was never taken seriously. The right wingers and even many left wing Israelis in the Knesset have done nothing to prevent the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to make a Palestinian state possible ... Arafat and Abbas are no fan favourites in the Arab world, but their infamy has nothing to do with their rejection of the ‘offer’. For this and for this only, I applaud them for not selling out. Israel’s so-called offer can be interpreted from many perspectives. The best book on the topic is Charles Ederlin’s Shattered Dreams, which is basically dialogue transcribed and put into print from many representatives at Camp David. Israel’s “generous” offer was not so generous. The Arabs were offered 80% of the remaining 22% of historic Palestine; a network of roads, bridges, and tunnels accessible only to Israeli settlers (who were to remain illegally on Palestinian land); permanent loss of water resources; no shared sovereignty in Jerusalem; the right of return of Palestinian refugees not even up for discussion, and with up to 80% of the illegal Israeli settles to remain in place. I don’t know about you, but that is in NO WAY what a comprehensive peace plan should look like. I just wanted to point this out for those who believe that the Camp David offer was some sort of generous offer from Ehud Barack’s cabinet. I’m out of breath my friend; so I will leave it there for now. Feel free to check out the sources, I really do hope it is somewhat enlightening. If not, I thank you for a civilized debate and respect your points of view. Take care, God Bless!

you are confusing ordinary muslims citizens with fanatic mullahs- these people are trying to understand and show support- . Instead of shooting down the idea, a smart Jew would support this. Only by understanding and talking about it can there ever be a better world- YOU are clearly not interested. I feel sorry for you.

To #42 John from Toronto. John: Whatever was Herzel’s intention with the land of Palestine, it is not the situation today in the light of the 1948 UN decision to establish two states. Just like the majority of the Israeli Jewish population are the descendents of immigrants, so are the majority of the Muslim population are descendents of immigrants from other neighboring Arab countries. That said, it is strange that you recognize only the rights of the Arabs to live on the land, but you deny it for the members of the other party. Something is fundamentally wrong with your calculation of the land offered by two Israeli Governments to the PA representatives. It is not 80 % of the West Bank and the gaza Strip, but including the land exchange it is squarely 95%. This number is quoted over and over again by the members of the Clinton and Bush administrations and by the Washington Post, the New York Time etc; none of them are pro-Israeli newspapers I am sure you do agree. How did you obtain 22 % of the historic Palestine? It is more likely 40 %. What excatly you call the historic Palestine? Please review the sources of your calculations. I hope we could continue discuss this and other topics in the near future.

Believe me Steven, I am well versed on the topic and would never site information without checking my sources. The problem is that there is conflicting reports, depending on the source. Although the Washington Post and New York Times are not exactly pro-Israel, they surely are not pro-Palestine, I'm sure you would agree. How one could believe anything that comes from either Bush or Clinton is beyond me; however one of Clinton's chief advisors, Robert Malley, has a different interpretation, from which I referred to earlier. Okay I promise this time is for sure my last reply. I too hope to debate this topic in the near future. Cheers!!