Cutting off heads, blowing up non-Muslims including babies, stoning women is what Islam is about!

Both sides please stop these hate, revenge attacks. Respect both Jewish and Muslim lives.

Beautiful people of Yakir, Rechelim, Kedumim etc. find a way of not being tricked by these arab animals into giving them lifts.(In Herzliya Pee noone would give YOU a lift) You are such good people and we cant afford to lose you like this. We must stop you being so good natured and gullible. Just imagine you're from R A Jimmel or Galley Tchayyylet and drive on. Anyone who needs a lift MUST have a contact number to call a specific team of armed drivers only and well ahead of time.No waiting for lifts any more. You just give them ( and their supporters among us) cause for glee.

Are you really that dumb? He didn't attack them, he was nice enough to give them a ride. They pretended being hitchhikers and he gave them a lift. They murdered him and burnt his body; yup, seems like self defence to me.

In other words, "extra-judicial killing" is wrong, except for when Muslims do it, right?

If this were so obvious, why did Arafat need to fudge the rules such that "Palestinians" were Arabs who lived in this area since 1947 (this was the definition used by the United Nations, too), yet Jews could not be considered "Palestinians" unless they lived here since 1917? Why is the definition of "Palestinian" different for Jews and Arabs? Could it be that there really weren't so many Arab "Palestinians" as you are claiming, from "hundreds if not thousands" of years ago? Isn't it more likely that "Palestinians" are mostly Arabs who arrived here during the 20th century and very many of those, during the years between WWI and WWII? I'd like to see the proof of your claim that "most Palestinians were living here for hundreds if not thousands of years". Start with population surveys from 1906 (one hundred years ago) and explain your point clearly and convincingly. Add as well what percentage of the land was owned by Arabs who lived here (not absentee landlords, not the Turkish, not institutions). I bet the results would disprove your assertion.

Answer is a 2 state solution. But unfortunately thats not where the problem. AS they say the devil is in the detail, and (at least from my point of view) I believe the Israelis are not interested in peace - the problem is whenever I refer to something the israelis do you refer to something the arabs do so we get nowhere. If you can agree that both sides have been guilty of some terrible deeds - that leaves aside the occupation - and that is an israeli deed only - there are no palestinian occupiers of israel.

Weren't the Pilgrims "settlers" ??? What about all those Americans who in the 19th century traveled west to settle the land which is now California ???? Why is it only in Israel that those of us who moved to make our homes in remote areas (places that our government encouraged our inhabiting ) are being called "settlers"- and considered 2nd class citizens and not called pioneers as the early American "settlers" were called????

The occupation of land is not the issue. The land issues have been dealt with, both sides were able to agree to them with some minor changes, but essentially Israel was to withdraw completely from Gaza, which it did unilaterally, and all the settlements except for the conurbations would have been abandoned, East Jerusalem would have been part of the PA (3/4 of the Old City as well), the Muslims would have had sovereignty over the Temple Mount, about 40,000 Palestinians would have been allowed to go into Israel to live, Palestinian murderers of Israelis would go free from Israeli prisons, and the Palestinians would have gotten about 34 billion dollars in aid as compensation for property that remains in Israel's territory. So why wasn't it excepted? Arafat refused to accept that the conflict was over, and he refused restrictions on "the Right of Return". Neither of these issues have anything to do with "occupation". Now, my supposition is that you'll say that these were never offered to Arafat (it was called the Clinton Plan). But what is the point of saying that it was never offered, if you always had the opportunity to make it your own position? Or even to offer the Geneva Agreement? Not ONCE has a Palestinian leader said the above terms will close the deal. Not even a single one because it is YOU who are "not interested in peace"!!! Now, I would hate that solution of Clinton's. I think the Palestinians have no right to the Temple Mount. I don't think that Palestinians should get the Christian or Armenian Quarters of Old Jerusalem. I think that the previously Jewish areas of the Old City's Muslim quarter should be allowed to remain Jewish if they are inhabited by Jews. I believe that Hebron's Jewish community should be allowed to stay, and that all Jewish Holy sites should remain in Israeli sovereignty with access at least as good as Muslims have to the Temple Mount. I believe that there should be NO repatriation of any Palestinians inside Israel's boundary, and I believe that all Jews who live in Judea and Samaria should have as much option to stay there as Arabs have a right to stay in Israel. And if Jews have to leave "Palestine" then Arabs have to leave "Israel", whatever applies to one should apply to the other. But nobody asked me, and you guys didn't care anyway - nothing less than Israel's disappearance would satisfy you. Unlike you I do not believe that we are strangers here, and NONE of the UN Security Council Resolutions (the only ones that are binding) grants the areas behind the 1967 lines (W.Bank and Gaza) to a Palestinian state. It was all supposed to be negotiated, and the reason we "get nowhere" is because it is PALESTINIANS who won't negotiate!!!! If the "occupation" is the worst you can throw at us, I'll take it. We are saints compared to the terrorists and psychopathic passive aggressive denizens of the Palestinian culture of pride and violence, that undermines every thrust for peace that was ever made, or could be made.

This sort of thing really burns me up.

'Settlers' is not an appropriate word. How about 'squatters' or 'freeloaders?'

Devil might burn you too Lucy, so watch ya step.

Islam's definition of self defence is strange. Look at Iraq, how many muslims have been killed by other Muslims??? Were they killed in self defence? Wherever we see terror in the world, we see Islam, is this not true??? Is terror self defence??? Please share your thoughts...