you expect to much from the palestinian .if ever the have a state the will be like all arabs states no democrats and no freedom of expressions thats there nature thats all so please stop dreaming

hamas came to power through election mr. hanania, fair and clean election. its the choice of the palestinian. i thought what prevent the establishment of the palestian state is the occupation not hamas, but from you liberal palestian american we hope we will under stand you habel logic.

"The dream of a secular democratic Palestine was once based on a single state that merged what is now Israel with what have been occupied territories since 1967. It was the fuel that powered the Palestinian Revolution, al-Thawra, since the day when Palestinians began to represent themselves." This is a description of the complete end of Israel's existence. It's what Fatah wanted all along. Fatah and Hamas want the same thing. They always have. They only disagree on how to get there. Arafat was raised as a child of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was never secular. He just played a Third World Secular Freedom Fighter on TV. You've been asleep for a long time, Ray. Wake up.

Take a few more reality pills, Ray, & you'll see that the PLO under Arafat were just a bunch of corrupt gangsters & terrorists. Abbas is no different. Your leaders have been screwing you for 100 years. Talking about "Palestinian aspirations" is a joke. What have they accomplished in the last 60 years? I guess they aspire to violence, poverty, ignorance, religious fanaticism, corruption, & terrorism.

The still open question is disaster for whom? I see advantages all round. Everybody gains where there is less deceit and better representivity. A large majority of the Palestinean Arabs have voted Hamas and support and are prepared to suffer for the constant threat and actual terror attacks against Israelis and Jews abroad.

Arafat was directly responsible for numerous terror attacks in Israel. This is fact because of the numerous documents directly connecting him to terrorism that were recovered from the Muqata in Operation Defensive Shield. Ray forgets to mention this. The first principle of the Oslo Accords is to bring an end to terrorism and for the PA to take control over the lawless terrorist organizations in the territories. But Ray forgets to mention this. Arafat constantly declared, time after time after time, until the day he died, that the ONLY way for Palestinians to achieve statehood is through "armed struggle," or in Western terms, terrorism. Ray must have forgotten that too. By continuously brushing aside reality and truth, Ray subversively, although I must say successfully, spreads anti-Israel propaganda while claiming the altruistic goal of peace. I doubt that he understands the reverse effect he is causing.

just to remind Ray Hanania that the "green line" is a CEASE FIRE line and the settlements are not illigaljust depending how far back one looks. Jews are coming back home and that home included Judea and Samaria as well as the Gilead Golan and Kadesh Barnea. It would be wonderful to have a confederation of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel and solve many of the asperations peacefully for all parties. Just tourism in this situation woulf fuel a huge economic expolusion for the benefit of everybody. unfortunately we are back to the conflict between the Muslim religion and the rest of the world (especially the Christian) as jews we can only lose no matter who wins. As for the Palestinians --they bring the agony on themselves, with a bit of Israeli help.

"It was the rise of religious extremism under Hamas that prompted secular leaders like Edward Said, the conscience of Palestinian nationalism, to encourage Arafat and the PLO to seek to negotiate a compromise with Israel based on "land for peace."" Ray -- you mean the same Ed Said who threw stones at Israelis and justified the use of terrorism? We know you're a comedian, and not terrible at that job. However, your view of history seems to do what every other Palestinian excuser does: refuse to stand up and unconditionally denounce terrorism and those who support it. You are an apologist for criminals and murderers who deny truth, rewrite history, and aim to murder Jews, Israelis, and anyone supportive of the first Middle East democracy, which happens to be the only refuge for Hebrews and Jews. Land for Peace is not a real peace formula. Land for Peace is just a continuation of the "Phased Plan" by the Arab and Muslim world to eradicate the Hebrew people from their historic homeland, who have inhabited this land since thousands of years. Peace for Peace is the only real solution. After there will be peace for peace, the rest is negotiable, ie: give and take a bit on both sides so that both sides can live on and stop fighting. Of course, there is no hope of achieving peace for peace as long as Palestinians a) live in a self-sustained dictatorship, and b) allow corruption and political interests to keep the stupidest war of all time (the Arab anti-Israel wars, including the Intifadas), to endure. We all know that. The question is, when will you and the rest of the Palestinians accept it just as we Israelis do? Or, when will we in Israel tire of playing with the Palestinians' petty ways and do away with the notion of an Arab Palestine once and for all. After all, the majority of "Palestine" as any student of history should know, is contained in what is now called Jordan, and as it turns out, there are just as many Palestinians living in Jordan as in the disputed territories. Lovingly, - T.H.

and you prove yet again that Palestinians support terror. Hamas is after all, a terror group which wants to destroy Israel. It is in their charter, so you cannot argue against that fact. BY voting for Hamas, the Palestinian people showed the world their true colors...ones of hate, intolerance and terror. Good luck with getting your own state though!!!

In his last paragraph, Hanania finally acknowledged the truth that all the problems of the Palestinians are self-inflicted, they do it to themselves. After Oslo, they had an opportunity to choose mutual cooperation with disputes settled by negotiated compromise. Instead they chose violence and intransigence which set them back 20 years.

Meaningful discussion does not attack another race. Get over the hate and recognize that Arabs, Jewish, and others deserve respect. Disagree with a view point without attacking the race of the the person with the viewpoint.

Mr. Hanania... "No such idealistic state exists anywhere in the Middle East or the larger Muslim world, and it certainly does not exist in the West either." Not true. Such "states" most certainly do exist in the west. One is called Canada. It's secular, democratic, and here Christians, Muslims and Jews do live together in peace and equality, and with mutual respect. And while there are growing signs of intolerance in France and Spain, for the most part, in the EU as well, Christians, Muslims and Jews do live together in peace and equality, and with mutual respect. The Palestinian people choose Saddam, Osama, and Hamas of their own free will. At this juncture the Palestinian economy and political arena has been radicalized. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and others are funded by outside interests whose backers are not interested in the Palestinian's coexisting with Israel. For the new Palestinian economy, there is no profit in peace. With Hamas now firmly in power the next few months will bring numerous attempts to renew financial support from the west. With each failed attempt Hamas will paint the west as uncaring, spiteful and hateful of the Palistinian people, furthering their doctrine of hate. Will Hasma change and give peace a chance? Even if negotiated from a dissadvantage, peace should be better than death, distruction and continued war. Not for Hamas, whose very being is about destroying Israel. For Hamas, death, distruction and continued war is not only preferrable, it's returns a profit.

Your Comment: You are an apologist for criminals and murderers who deny truth, rewrite history, and aim to murder Jews, Israelis, and anyone supportive of the first Middle East democracy While this may be true, did the Palestinians not vote for the current party? All funding and tax collection was stopped by the Israelis, while collecting interest. Is this true democracy ? The complete occupation and demoralization of an entire population ? this is what you call democracy ? Open racism, illegal occupation is not my idea of democracy. Unless you consider the Jews or Israeli Citizens.... Then, hey, of course you have a good democracy.

Dear Sunny, Since when is Israel obliged to give money to a "democratically elected" gang of thugs and terrorists, bent on Israel's destruction? Maybe you would let US Aid fund al-Qaida Madrassas in Waziristan, and Wahabite Madrassas in Saudi Arabia, if they allow for "democratic" elections the likes of which the Hamas and Fatah ran? Your point is trying to equivocate governments based solely on democracy. My argument states that there needs to be GOOD democracy, ie: not supporting terrorism. What you call "occupation" ... well, that's debatable, to say the least. Especially as legally and technically speaking, they are "disputed territories". On the other hand, Terror is terror is terror. Targetting civilians for the sole purpose of bloodshed no matter what the cause, is terror. The Palestinians are experts in that field alone. The Israelis do not practice terror. We practice counter-terrorism, which is a very different practice altogether. We go out of our way not to injure civilians and non-combattants. When the Arabs kill civilians, they cheer. When we do it, we mourn, we apologize, we criticize ourselves, we launch investigations, and sometimes we even reprimand, and yes, even convict our own people for crimes they commit against the people living among those who have sworn themselves as our enemies. If you can't see that, then in my opinion, you would benefit by opening your eyes and studying the subject a little more. With love, T.H.

I must give you credit for at least knowing that there are two kinds of occupation: legal and illegal. You may also know that illegal occupation is occupation that results from unprovoked aggression launched with the purpose of occupying territory, while legal occupation results from the occupation of enemy territory as a result of a defensive war. Now, time for a history lesson. In mid-1967 Gamal Abdel-Nasser President of Egypt started telling everyone who would listen very louldly that he was about to destroy Israel. For this purpose he maide a alliance with Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. By early summer of 1967 a ten-thousand man invasion force was mustered in the Sinai and waiting for the Soviet go-ahead. (there can be no doubt that this was not a defensive force because Israel at the time had NO standing army AT ALL). Soviet approval came and the follwoing memo was circulated through the Soviet high command "Arab invasion of Israel expected day-to-day, Israeli life expectancy estimated at 3-5 days!" Three days before the war began Israel called up its reserves, and several hours before the attack King Hussein of Jordan recieved a telegram from Israel saying that the war to come was to be only between Egypt and Israel and that Israel had neither the desire nor the intention to fight Jordan. Israel's premptive strike caught Egypt completely by surprise, and since all its forces were massed close together in preparation for the invasion, they were destroyed within three days, this despite the fact that Jordan attacked Israel the moment the attack on Egypt began. Syria and Lebanon were also caught off guard, and by the time they attacked three days later Egyptian forces had been destroyed and Israel was able to launch a lightning areal counter-attack and end the war in three more days and occupy the Sinai, Gaza, the west bank of the Jordan River and the Golan heights. Since all of this territory was acquired in a defensive war, Israel's occupation of it is perfectly legal, and since as soon as the war was over it offered all of that land back in exchange for peace treaties and was refused and answered six years later by another invasion, Israel's annexation of all territories occupied in 1967 would be PERFECTLY LEGAL. History lesson over.

'settlers' staying in their homes and not being ethnically cleansed Ray?

first of all arafat did not force the arab to recognize a palastinian state ,as the palastinian state never be presented till now ya ray .. there are palastinian people without any rights here or there .. i think the arab forced arafat for the ugly oslo ,, as a palastinians we want our rights .if it is from barakat america or barakat macca .. but not from barakat ray you are a sound from far away dffecult to be heared ,still hamass and fateh near us ,and still israil the enemy of palastinians here

For the very elaborate history lesson. I'm always willing to listen to both sides of an argument, and will admit when I'm wrong, or have learned something. Your argument about Legal v. Illegal occupation is invalid. As one of your own Shlomo Benami points in his book "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" Norman Finklestein Quotes: "in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it's INADMASSIBLE TO ACQUIRE TERRITORY BY WAR: The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it's inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That's the international consensus. " So where has my research (very lightly use that word) gone wrong ? International Law says that One nation may NOT acquire territory by force. If there is to be a two-state solution, should the lands not go back to Palestine? to the ORIGINAL 1967 Green Line ? This argument could go on and on. But I only want to debate factual information. Must we always point out Resolution 242 ???? Well, here it goes again: "calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) and the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency." It also calls for the recognition of all established states by belligerent parties (Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan) of each other and calls for the establishment of peace and secure and recognized boundaries for all parties." How much clearer can it get. Without diluting the facts with opinion, Israel is breaking international law and UN Resolutions (Multiple). I don't want to be anti-semitic, or racist, as the poster here (palestians are a myth, so poignantly points out that Palestinians never existed, I have been to masada2000.org) . So then, who are the people that were there ? regardless of what race they were, or if you say they are a myth, was it legal to Occupy and Ethnically Cleanse a nation of people ? Think about your arguments. I appreciate all the feedback you all have graciously given. Thanks, Sunny

Now, You say that a government needs to be a good government... Do you consider the Israeli gov't a good and fair government ? Does the Israeli gov't not opress millions of people daily ? Starved for food, work, even water to drink. Can they say that it's legal to deprive an entire population of basic human necessity ? I mean, you ask for recognition by Hamas, Fattah, Palestine, etc.... Does your government recognize the right of all Palestinians to be accorded the same ? Something there is not working, why else would the Palestinians have voted for Hammas in the first place ? They are begging for a change. Do you not consider them to be human ? Do you think that if the Palestinians were given the right to exist, without the Israeli ruling hand, autonomously, peacefully, and without checkpoints, walls, barriers, etc, would there still be terrorism ? Why has this not been tried since 1948 ? By the way, the IDF doesn't always apologize when they kill civilians. What ever happend to the apology for the Gazan family that lost 17 members this past fall ? what was the explanation given ? uhh, technical error??? was there ever a public apology from the Gov't ? I never heard of one.... But of course I live in the states, much of our news is Spun to only one side, where Israel looks like the model citizen, and the Arabs are terrorists. Do you wonder why the Arabs hate us ? they don't have a voice. The again, are not treated as equals. Do you think that if they were armed the same as Israel, they would resort to terrorism ? There is not equal ground here. Israel will never let Palestine be a fully Sovereign Nation. This is why a two-state solution will never work. Why not a one state, that is non-religuous govt. Why will this not work ? I think we all know the answer to that question. By the way thanks for that lesson, however, I think my eyes are wide open. Love right back at ya. Sunny

I like what you write in general and I am happy toread it But mind you Hanania and all readers :People on this land used to live always in peace and harmony dispite of their diferent cultures ,ethnic extraction and religeos faith... It was the zionist project only ....It was the zionist project only ...which came from Europe to bring dispair and to end the harmony between people and to create tragedies in name of superiority ...

While I do appreciate your research, which seems very selective. Norman Finklestein quoting Shlomo Benami is not relevant to legal vs illegal. But simply opinion. Daniel's argument has a basis in interrnational law. Please enlighten me to your source about international law "one nation may NOT acquire territory by force". There is a difference between defensive force and aggressive force ( i.e. Nasser stating "our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel" or Hafez Assad "The Syrian army is ready...the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation" ) . It sure sounded like the Arabs were the ones who wanted to take land by force. 242 as defined by you is not "factual information". Also, it is NOT a "semantic dispute" as you claim. And no they should not go back to the Green Line ( pre 1967 ) nor were they intended too. 242 states "Withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from territories in the recent conflict". The Soviet delegate wanted the words "all the" territories the Arabs wanted the word "all" territories both were rejected by the UN. The Soviet & Arabs said then Israel would be able to keep some land. So in FACT that was a DELIBERATE act by the UN. This was confirmed by Lord Caradon the author of the resolution and Arthur Goldberg the American ambassador who led the delegation in 1967. Since you seem to care about international law, tell me, what is your opinion about the UN resolution that calls suicide bombings murder under international law, and under the law of all civilized countries. The UN resolution states there are NO acceptable reasons. I must say this, I beleive if Israel did go back to the pre-1967 borders nothing would change. Another pretext would be used to continue attacking Israel. I wish I was wrong :( Take Care Mark

International law and the laws of war do not come from the UN and never did, they were developed in the West around 2000 B.C. and in the East around 3000 B.C. and as testament to their universality the two sets were virtually the same despite the gap in time and culture, and although not everyone played by these rules, they were mostly obeyed by all states until the twentieth century: Diplomats were given protection, there were declarations of war and treaties ending war trully did end war and were binding, Land conquered by defense was conquered legally (what's more land conquered by aggression was considered legally conquered although the victor was frowned upon and world opiinion generally turned against him) and needless to say battles were fought out in the open, civilians were left alone and there was virtulaly no terrorism. However after the horrors of WWI the liberals who formed the League of Nations (and later the UN) decided that these laws no longer worked and outlawed first war and population transfer, and then after WWII Occupation and the forcing of aggressors to pay war debts. What they did would be the same as if our courts said that since murder, forced detention, kidnapping, and theft are crimes, the death penalty, imprisonement, deportations, and fines are also illegal, which would be great except that now when someone comits these crimes there's no way to punish them or to prevent them from ofending again and protecting society, except of course negotiation, which in the justice system metaphor translates to voluntary psychiatric help.

If people from both sides are angry with you - you must be doing something right.

Ray, you are probably right about the present. A unity government isn't going to get Hamas to accept Israel. Your vision of a secular Palestinian state with Jews, Christians and Muslims living as equals and in safety never existed outside of the dreams of a few people. It was never the goal of the PLO or any other Palestinian organization. A one-state solution would have been a "naqba" for Jews I write this sadly as someone who supports a two-state solution. To #20, there may not have been a Palestinian people in the past, there is one now.