Slashdot Mirror

Precisely how they did it is yet to be revealed by a truly independent investigation with full subpoena power. This timeline leaves no doubt that the official story is a crock of lies, and indicates a number of people who should be taken in for questioning. For a longer exposition including proof of controlled demolitions, details of disinformation tactics, and information on moving companies, a "factoring company" that specializes in "unconventional transactions worldwide" and deals with the Pentagon, the CIA and the FBI, and possible links to organized crime, see here.

Pre-9/11 Timeline

1946: July 22. Menachem Begin's Irgun Jewish terrorists dress as Arabs and bomb the King David Hotel, killing 92 people. The Irgun also plot to assassinate British foreign secretary Ernest Bevin; fortunately, this conspiracy is foiled by MI6.

1948: May 14. David Ben-Gurion declares the independence of the new Zionist State of Israel, born from deception and from the blood of victims of Jewish terrorism hours before the British Mandate is due to expire. It takes effect at midnight, Tel Aviv time. May 15. Eleven minutes after midnight, U.S. President Harry Truman officially recognises the proclaimed Jewish state in Palestine.

1954: July. An Israeli spy ring is arrested in Egypt. These Israeli secret service agents have been assigned to attack U.S. and British interests in Egypt. "Operation Susannah" is a typical example of false-flag terrorism in which the perpetrators pin the blame on another party - in this case, Egypt and "the Arabs" - for political gain. The operation is unsuccessful, the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon is forced to resign as a result of the scandal, and the incident becomes known as the Lavon Affair.

1967: June 8. Israel carries out a sustained air and naval attack on the USS Liberty for over an hour, employing torpedoes, machine guns and napalm rockets, even to the extent of machine-gunning lifeboats launched to save the most seriously wounded. 34 men are killed and more than 170 wounded.

1983: Christopher Bollyn marries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine/
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php/

The fact is that the Israelis are not interested in peace. They want the full of Palestine and that's it.

Really? The original UN partition plan was to create 2 states, 1 Arab, 1 Israeli, with international status for Jerusalem (hmmm, I've also heard that many times in the last 20 years). The Jews accepted the UN proposal, while the Arabs refused, and chose war instead. The Arabs lost that war.

After losing the 1967 war, the Arabs got together in Khartoum to discuss the situation. This conference is sometimes called the "three nos" conference due to the Arabs' decisions:

      1. NO peace with Israel
      2. NO recognition of Israel
      3. NO negotiations with Israel

When Arafat was negotiating with Barak, Barak offered 97% of what Arafat was asking for. Instead of a counter-proposal, Arafat's response was to unleash intifada 2.0.

There are many documented examples showing that Israel is interested in peace and sharing the land. And there are many documented examples that the Arabs are not.

Physical features can't identify terrorists. In Tel Aviv, for example, you might think you'd look for Arabs. You'd be dead. Who knew that the inventors of Pokemon and Speed Racer would fly on a French airplane to shoot up the place?

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lod_1972.php

The real story, at least to me, is that the DOJ has demonstrably been involved in a systematic effort to rewrite history.

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.

So, what you are saying is, if someone takes most of your country and forces you into a tiny over crowded part of it, and then they take most of that too

At this point in the sentence, I had no idea which side you were taking. I think readers of both biases were cheering you on thinking you were sticking up for their side. But then I reread it and saw the word "country," and reasoned that you must have been supporting Israel.

then they offer you the shitty uninhabitable parts back,

The depictions of "Palestine" in Arab propaganda don't show any hollowed out areas of undesirable land. They seem to want it all. However, if they think that certain parts of the land are "uninhabitable," I'm sure there are plenty of Jewish "occupiers" who would love to "occupy" this "uninhabitable" land.

while keeping control of your infrastructure, they are being generous.

There is only one side that is capable of running an infrastructure. Did you see Gaza after the Jews left town three years ago? The Arabs ran in and ruined it. Who is providing infrastructure for the PA areas now? Israel! Very generously so, even as the Arabs in those areas are deliberately killing Israeli civilians, including children. PA Arabs live each day by the grace and compassion extended to them by the Jewish State. I'm talking electricity, water, hospitals, etc. While thousands of rockets are hitting Israeli towns (well outside "occupied" territory), just last week, the state of Israel sent 392 trucks delivering foodstuffs, medical and other humanitarian supplies through the crossings into Gaza.

Take a look at the map of Israel and Palestine today, all of that used to be Palestine, now it is almost all Israel, the coat the borders and the airspace are ll controlled by Israel, and this super greedy 100% that you talk about is just 100% of the land taken inside the west bank, how can you honestly say that the Palestinians didn't compromise?

To set the record straight, all of that land PLUS Jordan PLUS Lebanon PLUS parts of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq used to be JEWISH land! Receiving that won't happen without the Messiah, but I'm just sayin'...

Anyway... Since the original state mandate in 1948, Israel has acquired land only in response to beating back Arab nations after those nations had instigated attacks. Even so, it has shown great grace (to its own detriment) and given back a lot of that land. Greedy?

Please note, there has never been a country called Palestine. This requires a major history lesson, which you may begin here.

The irony here is very rich. "Palestine" is a historic name with which the PLO chose to identify. They call themselves "Palestinians," which in Hebrew, means essentially "nomads." Wanderers. Migratory people. The "state" of nomads is not to have a state! Look at the Bedouins in Israel. The well-intentioned government built some houses for them, but they refused. Nomads live in tents. They have no nation or homeland.

Another good tidbit is "Hamas," which means "violence" in Hebrew. The Bible says that God will rid the land of hamas. In Psalm 11:5, God says that He hates those who love hamas. Who would Jesus bomb? Now you know.

If the Palestinians got what was fair, they would split the entire country 50/50 with equal access to the sea, and air, and equal rights to govern themselves and allow the right of return for Palestinians.

1. Algerians = Arabs of Algeria
2. Bahrainis = Arabs of Bahrain
3. Comorians = Arabs of Comoros
4. Djiboutians = Arabs of Djibouti
5. Egyptians = Arabs of Egypt
6. Ir

You must be new here ... voices of reason don't belong on slashdot ! Please limit yourself to extreme-left politically correct ideas. The US is EEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLL.

All americans are sluts and fornicators, and gays. And then there's satan, also called "bush".

And therefore muslims must kill them all, allah says so ! We, as leftists who wish "the best" for "america's repressed people" should hope for this very same outcome because ... well then they'd kill us too ! Wait, actually that's not good. Uhm well. I'm sure that they'll treat us very well after they've blown up new york, right ? They will have food, jobs and women.

Yep they do promise all that, 72 women in fact ... after death of course. So will all the leftist please line up in front of this container ? A gas chamber ? Where did you get that idea ? It's just a shower ...

You know I'm starting to think this is not such a good idea after all ...

I am seriously in danger of violating Godwin's law so let's just point out what should be obvious to anyone ... muslims and hitler :
The last leader of the muslim world (yes we killed him, for good reason, please read on) recruiting muslims for ... the SS "Handzar" division

In a country where certain people are allowed to go around preaching hate we have the PC brigade revising history so as not to upset them. We can't even celebrate Christmas any more. Of course when I say celebrate I mean over eating, imbibing to much vino and falling asleep through the Queens speech.

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan"

"we hate the people of kufr"

"Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture, has been stabbed and shot dead in Amsterdam"

--

"Christmas is the one time of year when people of all religions come together to worship Santa"

"By way of example, you seem to hold some grudge against the Muslim people"

No, I do not. I however reject oppressive theocracy, and believe in tolerance for different faiths (or lack of faith).

"which is rather strange given that a) the only time the Jewish people have enjoyed protection and prosperity under a non-Jewish, non-secular government was under the Ottoman government"

Did you know that under the Ottomans, the Jews were forced to follow Muslim laws and submit to Muslim authorities? Did you know that they also had to pay a special tax just for not being Muslim?.

"and b) persecution of Jewish people has long been at the hands of Europeans and Christians."

That is only complete when you mention "...and Muslims" at the end.

The Arab world reacted to a huge influx of Jewish migrants in the 30s and 40s, as well as the creation of a Jewish state in the middle of Arabia, where it had no logical reason to be.

That was the most logical place for it to be. However, it was not in Arabia. Arabia is to the southeast of the area. It was in the Eastern Mediterranean area. You also didn't mention that Jews fled persecution in nearby Muslim countries in order to move to Israel. To some degree, they were forced out.

"The Arabs owed nothing to the Jewish people for the holocaust, why make them pay?"

The Palestinians participated in the Holocaust

"Given the support the US gives to Israel, why not just make Israel in the US? That'd put an end to the Middle East dilema pretty quickly."

...and it would satisfy the demands of those who want to get rid of Middle Eastern Jews once and for all.

"Incidentally, you did not "blow my argument out of the water", you simply played the all-too-familiar "Jews are victims therefore need special treatment""

Actually, I don't think they deserve special treatment. They deserve equal treatment. If we can have a Palestine for the Palestinians, a Syria for the Syrians, a Jordan for the Hashemites, an Egypt for the Egyptians, then why not have an Israel for the Israelis? Yes, "Anyone who suffers should be helped."

"You can say what you want about this, but no amount of arguing or twisting or wheeling will change the fact that millions suffer and die while the rest of the world dresses up their own agendas as the most important."

There's a lot of wisdom in that statement, actually. I have written about this before [mrnaz.com], but somehow, I don't think you'll care about the plight of anyone who is not Israeli.

I argue equally vehemently at those who "question" the right of a Palestinian state (and by extension Palestinians) do exist. If you had someone who, say, was insisting that Iran be wiped off the map, I'd object there too.

"Furthermore, the only real time Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived together peacefully was under Ottoman governance."

The analogy of the Jim Crow south is again quite appropriate. There have been other instances of a foreign occupying empire instituting peace ("Pax Britannica"). But is that justice?

"Israelis are not lowly or in need of sympathy."

There are several nations out to exterminate them. Any time such an atrocity is directed at someone, they earn my sympathy.

"I see no "crushing" there, other than a statement saying something like "please don't invade our country, how would you react?"

King Abdullah does not mention that much of this "invasion" was settlers legally buying (not stealing) land, and the "reaction" was in the form of genocidal pogroms. Sort of like whites in LA getting upset with all the people from Mexico arriving and buying houses and paying apartment rent, so these whites decide to start killing Mexicans and stealing their property. That's a reasonable reaction just as incidents such as the Hebron pogrom were reasonable reactions to peaceful Jewish settlers.

It was also mentioned elsewhere that King Abdullah said in his speech(?) that the holy sites should be open to ALL faiths. What he did not mention is that under the administration of his government (Jordan), Jews were denied entry to the holy sites, and Jordan even actively desecreated Jewish graveyards. He certainly did not practice what he preached.

Only when Jerusalem was freed from control by oppressive theocracies did all descration stop, and the rights of ALL faiths to the holy sites have been respected. You can't deny that Israel's respect to the rights of all worshippers to access the holy sites has been exemplary. This page details how King Adbdullah I really felt about decency in such matters of respect as grave-sites. He even instituted a policy where "Jews were not permitted to live in the city, nor ----despite the term of the 1948 Armistice Agreement -- to visit or pray at the Jewish holy sites in the city."

I see "crushing" there.

Perhaps he's quoting the groups.

I would like to enlighten you on the subject of Israel vs the rest of the arabic world, and inform you that the aggressor in this conflict is not Libanon, it is not Palestine, it is Israel.

Aggressor? What a joke. Not only is Israel passive, it's obsessive-passive. It puts doormats to shame. Israel has surrendered everything (every kind of thing, that is) in hopes of attaining peace, but received only scorn and bloodshed as thanks, followed by more demands and threats against it. Over eighty percent of the current Israeli political spectrum adheres to pacifism of Islamic terror to a large degree. That doesn't mean they won't eventually retaliate against terrorists, but that doesn't make them aggressors.

All Israel's fighting has been purely defensive. Read up on some facts before you go spilling your ignorance again in a public place. Or watch History in a Nutshell.

Please note I said people, not Lebanese people in general. Yes I still see an issue with calling Hezbollah terrorists cockroaches. That said, it was unclear from your comment whether you were referring to the Lebanese people as cockroaches or not. After all Israel is bombing Lebanese infrastructure after all, I could assume that bombing is part of the process of dealing with the cockroach problem.

And you better understand that Israeli see arabs as exactly the same people as they are, but I am not Israeli.

I would like to believe that, I really would. However I do not believe that is the case. I have had friends visit Israel and some have spoken of the inequality before the law when comparing Jewish Iraelis to non-Jewish Iraelis. I've read enough from other sources to suggest that there is an inequality.

But that aside, if one Israeli life was worth just as much as one Arab life, why are the body counts of current conflict in Lebanon skewed? Surely if one life was equal, Israel would feel equal pain at the death of a lebanese civilian and an Israeli civilian? Or Hezbollah militia member and an IDF soldier?

Equally in the conflicts in Gaza have shown a similar picture. How about the time Israel dropped a one ton bomb on an apartment block to kill one man, killing 14 others in the process, 7 of them children (please note, I had to google up the details on this and grabbed the first result, I have no idea what views are expressed in the site)? That was an attack that was considered a success. Are the Palestinians allowed to kill 14 Israeli civilians along with an IDF General?

I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that the government or the majority of the people of Israel consider that 1 Israeli life is worth 1 arab life.

I want to make my position clear. I allow that civilian deaths, while regrettable, are a fact of life in military conflicts. I accept that Hezbollah chooses fight near and amoung civilian populations. I accept that Israel has a right to defend itself and that it is largely surrounded by hostile or indifferent neighbors. However Israel should respond in proportion to that offence. Bombing power plants and roads in Lebanon is not in proportion.

I wonder if Yassir Arafat will be awarded this one, too. (posthumorously)

I hope you are not on Mozilla's PR team. Man oh man!

If you want to be less controversial next time, you could make comparisons between the Nazis, 9-11 victims, and gay baby seals. And you are clueless as to why your freaks doubled on October 8? (Note to others: I am not one.) You recklessly tromped into THE MOST explosive, political/religious clash in the world. Did you honestly think that you were going to escape from that comment without any bad blood?

You should be aware that Palestine (the supposed Arab country) does not exist. I don't know how old you are, but the propagandist concept that such an Arab state had existed was invented by Yasser Arafat (a native of Cairo, Egypt) in 1964 in order to destroy the relatively new Jewish state of Israel. For a primer on the conflict, see History in a Nutshell (Flash animations).

So if Mozilla = Palestine, then Mozilla is nothing but a myth -- and a very evil and destructive one, at that.

Palestine is vaporware; Mozilla is not.

No doubt it was troubling. But that is not the issue we are discussing at all. We are discussing how on earth does this justify interventionism, invasion, ...etc.

But it is the issue, in regard to how my views changed. I used to think we could be isolationist, should be isolationist. Now I see that doesn't work.

Don't understand. Disagreed with interventionism? Or isolationism?

I disagreed with both. Now I still disagree with interventionism as I did before -- only for the sake of national security -- but not with isolationism.

You got it wrong.

No, I certainly did not.

When there was hope for the Palestinians for a settlement, there was no terrorism.

Arafat had a chance for a settlement, and he rejected the offer and called for the intifada instead. There was a chance for settlement, and Arafat chose terror.

Suddenly Sharon made his infamous visit to Al Aqsa mosque, and the second intifada broke lose

It's quite clear that the intifada was ready to go before this, and would have happened without it, and that Arafat walked away before this happened anyway. With Arafat walking away, a renewal of violence from the Palestinians was inevitable.

And even if none of that is true, come on, you think Sharon going into a mosque during visiting hours justifies terrorist attacks in response? I don't think so.

Put it into perspective and you will see it as it is.

Funny, I was going to tell you the same thing.

Think about it in another way.

No. If you use terror, then I have absolutely no interest in trying to see things any other way. Look, if you punch me in the face because you are hungry, you think I am going to want to give you a slice of bread? No. Sorry, I just won't care. Stop using terror, and I might care. That's the way it is.

Suppose a minority (say Native Americans or African Americans) start to agitate. They are citizens of the USA. How would Whites react if the US governemnt starts sending missiles in choppers to kill the leaders?

If "to agitate" means "intentionally killing hundreds of innocent citizens, including women and children, with suicide bombs," then I imagine most people in the US would support it. I would.

Also wait till Musharaff turns into the next Noriega or Saddam or Bin Laden, though this time he has nukes and his arch enemy has them too.

Yes, that is a danger, though an unlikely possibility. But do you have an alternative? Didn't think so. We had to go into Afghanistan; we needed Pakistan's support. Forget about what happened before, the last 30 years, for a moment. Regardless of the past, we must deal with the present when it happens.

And the results on the ground say otherwise.

No, they do not. Results are to be interpreted, they don't say anything themselves.

Wake up and see it for what it is, and not for what you want it to be.

Back at you.

Even the sanctions against Saddam did not do the desired effect, and hurt the people who now loath you more and more because of their dead children, then an invasion.

So you're ... agreeing with me? We tried other means first, despite you saying force was our primary means. Those means failed miserably -- I agree entirely -- and so we used force. And now Iraq is struggling, but poised for a great victory as it transforms itself into a democracy.

Even Bush Sr. did not favor an invasion when he had the opportunity in 1991.

Because he was fooled into thinking that Hussein could be neutered by what you admit was a failed policy!

Bush would have invaded one or more of Iran/Syria/Sudan

That's entirely unrealistic, sorry. You expose a bit of ignorance here, because th

To follow up about Arafat pillaging his people. Arafat has over a billion dollars stashed away that's SUPPOSED to be used for his people as stated here.

The Palestinian Refugee problem is also an artificial problem created by the arabs. Tiny little Israel has taken in over 600,000 Jewish refugees who have been expelled/persecuted in Arab lands. Why can't oil rich neighbouring Arab states with FAR MORE land take in the palestinian refugees?

Here is a LINK to a pro israeli site on the 6 day war.

You're right. They just shoot them.

Shouting slogans and waving placards is a principle of democratic protest. Democracy however is totally absent in the middle east (save for Israel).

In 1970, Jordan shot thousands of Palestinians. Not a slogan in sight.

Failing that, the Palestinians 'Arab Brethren' will just kick them out and use them as a bargaining tool against Israel (not giving two shits about the Palestinians of course).

The reason Israelis and Jews are allowed to protest is because it is a fundamental democratic right which Jews and Israelis hold sacred. The fact that people like you use that against them (comments about Rabbis protesting etc) shows a clear misunderstanding of Middle East Politics or a deliberate anti-Israel/anti-Jewish slant.

Indeed you will be hard pressed to even find left-wing or anti-Government protest in most of the Arab Middle East as this usually results in a heavy knock on the door in the middle of the night.

You're right. They just shoot them.

Shouting slogans and waving placards is a principle of democratic protest. Democracy however is totally absent in the middle east (save for Israel).

In 1970, Jordan shot thousands of Palestinians. Not a slogan in sight.

Failing that, the Palestinians 'Arab Brethren' will just kick them out and use them as a bargaining tool against Israel (not giving two shits about the Palestinians of course).

The reason Israelis and Jews are allowed to protest is because it is a fundamental democratic right which Jews and Israelis hold sacred. The fact that people like you use that against them (comments about Rabbis protesting etc) shows a clear misunderstanding of Middle East Politics or a deliberate anti-Israel/anti-Jewish slant.

Indeed you will be hard pressed to even find left-wing or anti-Government protest in most of the Arab Middle East as this usually results in a heavy knock on the door in the middle of the night.

I agree. And the Zionist entity does in fact include a huge Arab population within its borders who have equal rights. There are eight Arabs in the Knesset, and I think there is one Arab judge in the Supreme Court. (How many Jews have positions in the PA?) I repeat: No one desires to transfer peaceful Arabs. Zionists want to transfer only the Arab populations that support terrorism., i.e. those living in PA-controlled areas.

These "communities" have been ethnically cleansed of non-Jews,

That's not true. After claims such as yours, Jews began taking photographs of the barren land before they built their houses to prove that nobody had lived there.

and use Israeli law to prevent not only non-Israelis from living there, but also non-Jews.

No, they're doing the exact opposite! Look at your own link from Ha'aretz. What do you think that whole rally was about? Sharon is threatening to throw Jews out of their homes and demolish whole communities. Construction in Judea, Samaria, and Aza has been completely halted for four months. Meanwhile, the Israeli government doesn't say a word about all the illegal Arab settlements.

You thick head. You see how you twist things. Let me try one more time to get some sence into your ass.

You still have yet to provide any real facts or arguments.

The palestinians took the Jews in when they left Nasi Germany when no other country wanted them (including the US of A).

Bullshit. The only country to take in Jewish refugees was the Dominican Republic.

They, (Palestinians) tried for the last 50 years to negociate in good faith.

Really? So why did the Arabs declare war after the UN partitioned the British mandate territory?

And after losing the 1967 war the Arabs met in Khartoom, Sudan, to discuss the war. They decided 3 things:

No recognition of Israel.
No negotiations with Israel.
No peace with Israel.

The Zionist never had the peaceful intensions because their intension alway was and still is to build Isreal from the the Nile to the Tigres.

It is realy a waste of time with you.

You could at least offer some real facts and arguments.

Like I said, either the Palestinians get their rights, or you live in hell (Terrorism) for ever.

Palestinians who are citizens of Israel are the free-est palestinians in the middle east.

You need to read up a little more on your history of Israel/Palestine. Check out: http://www.palestinefacts.org/ for a very good history of conflict with footnotes to the sources.

You forgot to mention that the world believes Isreal has nuclear weapons, in breach of the non-proliferation treaties? (that they refuse to sign)

shhhhshhh....where do you think they got the money/tech for nukes?

Its like DPRK giving nukes to Iraq -- no?

The defacto head of arabs in Israel during World War II was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was such a fantastic guy, he hung out with the Nazi's in germany and promised to 'finish the job'.

And that lovely fellow, the Grand Mufti, had a young nephew who later changed his name to... Yasser Arafat.

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

A letter on key issues of the PLO and Israel, addressed to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was signed by Yasser Arafat on September 9, 1993. The letter says specifically that:

1. * The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
2. * The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338
3. * The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process... all outstanding issues ... will be resolved through negotiations
4. * ... the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators
5. * ... those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid
6. * ... the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

   Rabin gave a letter in exchange to Arafat, also dated September 9, saying:

   * ... Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process"

The American Indians weren't too happy with settlers taking over their land and the Palestinians aren't too happy with it either;

You've got the situation completely turned around, but that's understandable considering the confusing media coverage. The "Palestinians" are Arabs from other countries who are taking over Jewish land.

On the other hand, for the Zionists and the Far Right the whole business is definitely about race and religion (trying to set up a racially and religiously Jewish state).

You really need to learn some history of the Holocaust, WWII, and the international diplomacy that was going on after the war. The problem is that most people today were not alive then and don't know history. They have no context in which to place current events.

On November 29, 1947, a majority of the United Nations members agreed to recognize Israel as a nation for the Jews. Establishing Israel as a Jewish nation made sense in light of the recent massacre of over six million Jews in Europe and the fact that the Jews, as a people, had been perpetually persecuted as fugitives in other lands for the last 2000 years.

Arabs do not merit being given another country, especially if it is to be taken from the one safe haven for world Jewry. (See picture.) You see, if Arabs are persecuted in foreign lands, they can seek refuge in one of the 22 Arab countries that exist. Jews, on the other hand, face a bleak situation. Without Israel, Jews have no refuge from Nazis, Communists, militant Muslims, and other anti-Semites in the world.

It is an act of compassion to keep this sanctuary for the Jews. This doesn't mean that other people, even Muslims, shouldn't be allowed to live there. It just means that Israel should retain a Jewish leadership and character. I suppose this would be indeed racist discrimination, but it would be of a benevolent nature as long as Israel remained a tolerant democracy. If Muslims ever became uncomfortable in Israel, there would be many other multi-ethnic democracies and Arab countries to which they could flee. (Note that this is really pie-in-the-sky anyway. There are several Arab Palestinians in the Knesset. By the way, how many Jews are in the Palestinian Authority? -0- )

If you still insist on criticizing this goal, you should take a look at racism in Arab countries. The situation in Israel would be incomparable to the malicious racism, bigotry, and sexism enforced by torture, extortion, brutal murder, etc. that permeates the authoritarian governments and societies of Arab countries.

I'm not sure about your use of the word "Philistine". Did you mean "A person who is uninterested in intellectual pursuits"? Or did you mean Palestinians instead?

The latter.

As I understand it, their own name for their region is pronounced FAHLL-is-stin, named after the tribes which settled it in several waves. When the Jews came out of the desert into the promised "Land of Milk and Honey", it was such a land because the Philistines were already there, with cattle and beehives.

The word entered both Greek (as "the Philistine Syria") and Latin ("Provincia Syria Palaestina"). In English "Philistine" is descended from the Greek form, "Palestine" from the Latin.

More here. And there's plenty more to be found - both scholarly and propaganda - by doing a google search for 'philistine palestine'.

The Philistines never went away or got evicted. Even the Romans and the British didn't push them out. They did became somewhat diluted by intermarriage with other tribes who settled in the area. But to the extent that there are still Philistines in the world, they're still there - and still use the same name for their people (with the word absorbed essentially unchanged into Arabic).