The land is ours. It's the Arabs that are attempting to steal it. So typical - thieving Arabs. Care to produce a single treaty or law that states the land belongs to the Arabs? Bet you won't even try.

"you can justify suicide bombing, blowing up school buses" ,... Everything is justifiable to get rid of an invader and an occupier that colonise their land, like it or not ...

Does that mean that native Americans would be justified in carrying out suicide bombings? Or blowing up school buses? How about regular city buses, would it be appropriate for native Americans to blow those up, too? And nightclubs? Hotels? Restaurants? Presumably, under your scenario, the aborigines in Australia would be justified in doing the same. So would the Maoris in New Zealand. And it is the ersatz "Palestinians" who are the illegal occupiers. Make no mistake about that.

so, you want the British mandate be back and deprive Israel from celebrating the day of independence. Moreover, article 80 states that it shall not be interpreted as giving grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements with the Palestinians.

...these children had been invited to spend a couple of summer weeks in Israel, living with Israeli families, maybe even with active-duty IDF personnel, learning that their "enemies" are actually human.

wrong!!! both bible and koran say land belongs to the jewish people

golda was wrong about the love of children but not more than her children

I'm not claiming that Israelis are "angels", but you bring a few examples that comes to prove what? who was first to commit some attrocities? What you ignore is a much more fundamental issu, and that is the real intentions of the 2 people (Israelis and palestinians), and the way it is reflected in their education systems. The article clearly shows how the palestinians are educating their kids.. I'm afaraid you won't find this phenomena in the israeli education system...and this is the real basis upon which any mutual trust and peace can be built upon... not to mention the real intentions of goups like Hamas in Gaza for realtionship with Isarel into any forseeable future

"Does that mean that native Americans would be justified in carrying out suicide bombings?" But they don't and most of them got compensated for their land and are better off than an average American running casinos, liquer and cigarette stores, lumber business, fishing charters employing whites,...

The Israelis have tried on quite a few occasions. No sale.

And the American Indians have the advantage of not having to send their money to support Sufa Arafat and all the corrupt Pali leaders who only care about lining their own pockets at the expense of their people.

I'd like to draw your attention to Article 1, parts (i) and (ii) in UNSCR 242. The two parts of this same article irrevocably link withdrawal from territory to peace agreements. Egypt got Sinai back after signing a peace agreement with Israel, and, as a result of that agreement, Israel withdrew. When Jordan signed its peace agreement with Israel, borders changes according to the negotiated settlement and Irael withdrew from those territories. IF the Palestinians want the occupation to end, they'll have to make peace with Israel, whether they like it or not. Since the Palestinians themselves have insisted on the fulfillment of UNSCR 242, it's now incumbent on them to do the same. Under the conditions of UNSCR 242 there can be no Israeli withdrawal from so-called "Palestinian territories" without a comprehensive peace agreement that signifies the end of the conflict between Palestinians and Israel. One last word: UNSCR 242 does NOT require withdrawal from ALL the territories acquired in the 1967 war. Exactly which territories will be withdrawn from will be the subject of negotiations between the parties. Here's what Lord Caradon said in an article about UNSCR 242: 'I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation. ‘Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding. ‘Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.’ (Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45.) The ball is in the Palestinian's court, but they don't want to play. As long as they don't want to play, "the occupation" will continue. This leads me to believe that the Palestinian "leaders" are more interested in stealing what they can for themselves than they are in actually establishing a state.

In 1988, a group of researchers released a monograph pertaining to an investigation carried out on the same topic. Their conclusion was that there was no "Deir Yassin Massacre", except in the minds of several Palestinian Arab journalists who wanted the neighboring Arab states to help the Palestinian Arabs oust the Palestinian Jews from the land. The "strategy" backfired on them, and many Palestinian Arabs fled the country because of their atrocity stories. The monograph describes the incident as a pitched battle in which foreign (Iraqi) fighters were involved, holding local families hostage while fighting from their houses. The stories of rape, murder and pillage, according to survivors, were figments of the journalists' imaginations - in other words, they never happened. Ten years later, the BBC's Panorama series did a separate investigation of the same Deir Yassin incident and came to the same conclusions in one of the episodes of their series "50 Years of War". Now, since neither the BBC nor Bir Zeit University could be considered a "pro-Israel" source, don't you think that they would have loved to condemn Israel if they could? The evidence must have been pretty compelling if both those bodies exonerated Israel from the "Deir Yassin Massacre"... another massacre that never was, just like the "Jenin Massacre" of 2002.

This is clearly a violation of human rights and I don't hear the NGO's screaming about it, but promoting it is their line. Just shows that NGO's should be sent to places where they will really do work, they clearly don't in anything having to do with Jews.

They also live under occupation. Cyprus is occupied territory also, so are the Greeks teaching their kids to terrorize the Turks? The people of Western Papua live under military Indonesian occupation, Kurds are also an occupied people, just to name a few. So do you agree with all of these groups creating little suicide bombers and terrorists, or is it only the palis who you agree with doing this inhumane practice to their kids? Let's not forget that most of the worst suicide attacks were from Muslims who were not living under any occupation, they were UK citizens, American, German, etc.

Look at the pictures again. What do you see? These children emulate you by example. That is all they know of Israel and Israelis, they even wear Kippas. That is all you gave them, so blame yourselves, not the children, nor their parents. You bear responsabilties, so learn to owen them for once in your Jewish history.

Of course they should be held responsible. They are responsible to defend them selves of such brutal occupation and oppression. What what they look like, who are they dressed like? Does that tell you where they learned it from? Look in the mirror before you talk about others. That might help'

I'm sorry but this an immature argument... is there NO education system in Gaza?? don't tell me that this is what the kids decided to emulate.. Kids are not deciding their own education, this is obviously directed by adults with an intention to incite hatred. I bet you most of them never seen any of those so called episodes from any other resource than the Hamas propaganda machine