Well done Charles. This decision to build an MoT on a former Muslim cemetary is heart-breakingly ironic. Regardless of of the fact it was turned into a parking lot, or a supermarket, or whatever, it is just wrong, and if the tables were turned, it never would be allowed. I hope that Jews that are for peace in the Middle East protest the construction, as it is clearly intended to be a slap in the face to Muslims.

To be honest: I do not think that jews have any right to Palestine whatsoever, as some jewish sects also believe.

Zionism - the idea that jews everywhere, regardless of actual ethnicity and/or race (but rather just because of religious belief) have a claim to Palestine is absurd.

I recall things which I have learned over the years.

I was originally sympathetic towards the state of Israel and settlers, but then I learned that "indigenous jews" - who had always lived in Palestine - were being just as much ousted as their muslim brethren, alongside whom they had lived for centuries ... along with christians and people of other religious persuasions.

And I learned that Ethiopian jews are treated as second class citizens ... in fact just about anyone who is not, essentially, of European origin.

Later I learned that the word "semitic" really only refers to liguistics ... such that anyone who naturally speaks arabic, aramaic, hebrew, etc. is a semite.  And that throws confusion into the claim that only those who have a problem with zionism, israel and some vague notion of "jew" are 'anti-semitic'.


The irony emerging from this is that militant zionists are virulently anti-semitic, i.e. they hate arabic-speaking people and feel entitled to dispossess them, even to the extent of "eratz israel" - from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Sorry to say this, but it smacks of the Nazi ideology of "living room" and the right of a "chosen people" to conquer all others who stand in the way of this ideology.

Ironic that, having been persecuted in Germany - and throughout Europe for many centuries - essentially European jews are subjecting muslims to what they suffered in Europe, whilst no one in Palestine, nor the rest of the semitic world, had anything to do with what has gone on in Europe.

Now we have the Gaza Strip, which might as well be the Warsaw Ghetto and all these attempts to oust muslims/arabs from Jerusalem where, for centuries, people of many religious persuasions had lived alongside each other.

This "Museum of Tolerance" is, to me, anathema and a case of either double-think, or a cynical attempt to rid Jerusalem of everything except what seems to me (and others) as a corrupt form of judaism.

And, alongside the religious angle, in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza; there is what can only be called an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

I respect judaism and all other religions - though I have no religion myself - but I cannot see any chance of peace in Palestine (or what has become the fact of the state of Israel) until zionism and its protagonists are neutralized.

Gerry,
I suggest that you study a bit of history before you mouth off typical Arab propaganda about the sources of Judaism and the rights to live in certain lands. FYI The state of Israel was granted to the Jews according to international law in 1948. In May of that year Israel declared independence and was attacked by six Arab nations including the Arabs living in Palestine at that time. So any grieviances the former Arab Palestinians have should be voiced to the Arab states that atacked Israel at that time and did not accept the UN decision to grant to the Jews and the Arabs living in Palestine a state of their own.

Gerry, I disagree with much of what you wrote, and I hope that we have the chance to discuss it. But... this post is about the Museum issue, and you introduce things like Nazi Germany, Gaza and the accurate meaning of the phrase 'antisemitism.' Its disappointing. it's not just you though!

it seems like this site is attracting folks who want to argue about Israel and Palestine, Jews and gentiles, war and peace in a way that doesn't feel productive.

The debate over the creation of Israel is over. Antisemitism really does have a specific meaning. No, the Jews are not a people infected with chosen-ness and henceforth guilty of racism against all others.

Palestinians are not all terrorists. Muslims are not all fundamentalists. Israel was not granted to 'the Jews' but to the residents of what became Israel, Jews and non Jews.

Where are the normal people who can answer questions like these:

- what is the future of Jewish led holocaust education against the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
- how can we prevent support a real version of tolerance in the Middle East, one that doesn't degenerate into a contest of who is the biggest victim or victimizer?
- isn't it a such a crying shame that this Museum won't be built somewhere else, where it might have had a better impact?
- whose voices get lost in the shuffle when the loud voices predominate?

Ross, you too. You spout something called 'apologetics' which means its a line, not an argument. How do you feel? What are you worried about? What sort of things might make it better?

And before y'all rush to answer, I'd love to see more Arabs, Palestinians and women on the comments page. Tfadalu!

And thanks to the more than 100 people who have sent faxes already!

Charles, I am an engineer and a scientist, and as such apply logical pragmatical solutions to problems that defy "boxes" so I must disagree with your point of my "opologetics line" whatever I say are "my lines".
Regarding the discusion about the MoT everyone seems to forget that when Israel came back to Jerusalem in 1967, hundreds of Jewish graves were desecrated by the Arab population in Jerusalem. I think that this is a none issue, and that Israel is free to build the Museum as planned without provocation.

 
          In 1964,  the Sharia Court in Jaffa dealt with that cemetery and the President of the Muslim Court of Appeals ruled that the cemetery is Mundras ( "abandoned", which means that it has lost its sanctity and one is permitted to do on it what one does on any other land which was never a cemetery). More importantly,  back in 1929, the highest Muslim religious authority in Palestine, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini, initiated the building of the Palace Hotel on part of that cemetery because it was already considered a Mundras. There was also a plan to build a Muslim University on the site. The hotel was built but the University was not, because of lack of funds.
          It appears that you are not aware of the "Mundras" religious ruling, which allows for abandoned cemeteries to be used for commercial development and is found in many Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia.
          It appears that the objection to the Museum in Jerusalem has nothing to so with religion and everything to do with anti-Israeli politics.

Jacob Amir is spouting the same apologist propaganda mouthed by Rabbi Hier.  First, the issue shouldn't be whether the Palestinians have already declared the cemetery free for development.  The issue should be do we as Jews want to tell the world that this is the way we treat cemeteries belonging to other religions?  Then why should a Czech insurance company not build its headquarters in Prague & dig up Jewish graves in the process?  Why should anyone respect any Jewish cemetery anywhere?

Second, relying on the Grand Mufti is a credible religious source is laughable since he sided with Hitler during WWII.  Is this really who Hier & his apologists want to present as their evidence?

Third, there is a Jewish concept called pinui kever which forbids the disturbance of a grave, even a non-Jewish grave.  How does Rabbi Hier get himself out of that little problem?  He can argue that the halacha doesn't apply to non-Jews, but then he gets himself into a thicket by noting that he supports a view of Judaism which posits that only Jewish graves are holy, while non Jewish graves may be ransacked with impunity.

I was appalled by the decision of the Wiesenthal Centre to erect a "Museum of Tolerance" on top of a Muslim cemetry in Jerusalem. What kind of tolerance is it to show such utter disregard to a holy site of another religion? Just imagine a Museum of Tolerance on top of a Jewish cemetery in the USA or any country for that matter. There would be an immediate and furious outcry, and rightly so. Surely tolerance means respect and rapprochement between people, not trampling on their rights and sensitivities. I beg the decision makers of the centre to think again instead of inflaming feelings even further. That would be true tolerance.
Hanna Braun

I agree that it is best to avoid too much contention on a site like this, and as it is Charles' site he has the last word; however; I feel I must challenge Michael with the same words with which he challenged Gerry (leaving out the strident comment about 'mouthing off'): to do his homework. A good place to start is with the lengthy pamphlet provided free by Jews for Justice in the Middle East in a downloadable pdf file:  http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html  It uses almost exclusively the words of the founders of Zionsim and Israel to paint a very clear picture of why there is such conflict in the area and why Michael's argument above is entirely unfactual.

Shalom.

It does not bother me that Michael Ross made this personal attack:

"I suggest that you study a bit of history before you mouth off typical Arab propaganda."

But it does bother me that  another person is too scared to go public and explore the issues I raised.

He wrote me a private email saying that, in the US, he is too scared to engage in debate ... which is ironic because, within Israel, a lot of debate is going on.

Alan:

I followed your link and it largely describes my understanding of the history of the region, which I have followed for about 50 years, albeit at a distance and without necessarily favouring one side over another though, since '67, I have had a lot more sympathy for Palestinians and now have zero tolerance for zionists ... who are easily made distinct from average Israelis and moderate jews around the world.

At depth I am a "spiritual jew" and so is just about everyone else in the modern world.

I have been despized, rejected, displaced and left wandering in search of some kind of homeland.

The core of judaism - and derivatives like christianism and islamism - speaks to the fact that, worldwide now, peoples have been invaded, displaced and generally left without a secure base of any kind.

Personally I cannot believe in a g-d-as-such which endows me with any rights, but I can see how people who do believe in a g-d imagine that they have rights.

OK this is going way too deep, but maybe something might be achieved.

The person who sent me that private email commented that I had introduced some kind of balance ... and that has emboldened me to write what I just have.

Never, before, have I told anyone that I regard myself as a "spiritual jew", let alone tried to explain that.

Alan Cheney, that is one view point I suggest getting several, for example www.factsandlogic.org gives the other sides view point. I for example read over a dozen newspapers from all over the world to get a clear perspective on any issue I am interested in. I recommend doing this for our discussion also, so as to avoid slanted viewpoints. If you put three Israelis in a room typically you end up with six viewpoints, that is the strength of a true democracy. How many viewpoints will you get in Syria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia? In Israel the Arabs have more freedom than in any Arab state, they are members of the Knesset and have multiple newspapers.

Michael, I agree completely, and believe me, I'm well acquainted with the various viewpoints.  But historical facts are fairly incontestible, and there is a sizeable body of those on this topic.  My experience has been that zionist and zionist-christian accounts, in their (ahem) zeal, are very chinchy with inconvenient facts.  That's why I recommend the work I did: it is largely in the words of Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Maier, etc.

Another excellent source is Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. I'm told Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem is excellent as well and it's on my list to read.  Have you or others read either Carter or Friedman?

The Museum of Tolerence ought to be placed near or at the Latrun Monestary.

Monestery, that is.

I love the Latrun monastery! The Oasis of Peace / Wahat al-Salam School of peace is right next door. As a teenager, we would go there and buy a bottle of wine to have on Friday night. What a beautiful area!

Monastery, sorry. Where is it?  I haven't even been to Israel.  But I found a woman selling photo blank greeting cards at a I/P discussion circle put together by Tiertza Firestone, a local rabbi (in Boulder, CO where I reside) that Anna Baltzer was at.  Anna is a young Jewish American scholar that writes and experiences first -hand herself,  humiliation and other Israeli abuses for her support of Palestinian causes.   One of the photos' was of a womans' resting/healing tent at Latrun and I bought it for my aunt who had just had a stroke.

When I went to the (Latrun) site, I was surprised to find something about Pink Floyds' "The Wall" and how some peace event was supposed to be located in a controversial physical place. The production was moved to Latrun intentionally opposing the conflict surrounding the other locale. One of the members of Pink Floyd had just happened to have died two days before I bought the photo.

So it was not mere coincidence that I suggested this location.

As a matter of fact I wrote my comment before reading your post where you suggested some other location for the Museum of Tolerance and requested commentary from women, Arabs, or Palestinians.  I am a 1/2 Jewish (although on my fathers' side) woman.

I couldn't find the original reference to "apologetics" that Charles attributed to Ross, but isn't the term "apologists"?

I have a question for Michael Ross.  Why did the six Arab states including the Arabs in Palestine attack Israel in '48?  And the reason behind the reason you offer, please.

I'm headed to the Latrun monastery internet site again. Check it out.

I have a question for Michael Ross.  Why did the six Arab states including the Arabs in Palestine attack Israel in '48?  And the reason behind the reason you offer, please.

Lynn, I can only assume, since I cannot read minds. The prevailing view is that the six Arab states with full cooperation of the Palestinian Arabs living in then Palestine attacked the new state of Israel because they did not want a Western presence in the ME any more, they wanted all of Palestine for themselves, they did not aceept the international law as handed down in 1948 by the UN. As to the reason behind this reason, I believe that to be the truth. Do you or anyone else have a better explanation?

Go to Latrun monastery.  Google OR address bar.  Last entry on "Pink Floyd".  On the left column, if you go to obituaries,  it was Richard Wright that died of cancer on 16 Sept., the keyboardist and early member of Pink Floyd.

As Ronnie said (and the solitary thing I agree with him on):

TAKE DOWN THAT WALL.

Michael,  sounds plausible and ironic since it seems that this presence in the Middle East has been critical to the US in it's causes for full spectrum dominance. Remember it was Israel that the funds to the Contras from the arms sales to Iran to fight Iraq were laundred.

Maybe the economic global meltdown will put the US in its' place.
Like 9-11.  Anybody can be hurt. Sometime it might be you. Will we "get it" and craft our own evolution or use the retrospectoscope? Obama can only do so much.

Lynn, now don't go philosophical on me :0) You are right about the Contra, Israel is no saint, but better behaved then most nations at war, especially the USA. I think that if the world does not address the root cause to the unrest in the ME, ie Iran, we will not have peace. Iran is supplying money, weapons and training to Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria. Unless we stop Iran we will not have peace, their will always sprout another terror group ready to take Iran's monies and cause trouble in the region, and Abbas will not or cannot restrain these groups.

Careful who you call the devil.  Hezbollah considers itself a populist humanitarian organization and Hamas was the democratically elected entity, members of which I believe were detained and incarcerated by Israel.
The Treaty of Versailles punitive measures created the climate for Hitler to rise.
Go back, go back-- even Marshall Rosenberg has the curiosity to discover in interviews what motivates sexual predators (a misguided need for love).

As far as Syria, what about the Shabaa Farms?  And I thought the Golan Heights were part of Palestine.
 Know what, I declare it is no longer the West Bank and Gaza.  It is the country of Palestine. And like Iraq, it is being illegally occupied against all reason and countless UN Security Council resolutions. It is being eaten alive by Israel by the most unconscionable means of civil disenfranchisement known to civil society, separating down to man from wife! And while Israel has the audacity to declare the Palestinians are driving them into the sea, Israel is disappearing them into unspeakable despair in the longest most prolonged suffering death known to civilization.  I am ashamed to live in this era to have to watch this.

Lynn, Lynn, relax and take a deep breath, were is all this hate coming from? You need to receive information from both sides. So far in history the Nazis have caused the most death and despair, so you need to get a perspective on history. Secondly you need to step back and take a look 60 years back, just recent history of the 20th century. The UN in 1948 declared Israel a state and gave about 1/3 of then Palestine to the Jews and approx. 2/3 to the Arabs, that's a fact. What happened next is history, six Arab nations including the Arab Palestinians attacked the Jewish Palestinians with the full intent of eliminating them, if they had won, their would be no Israel. They lost and as a consequence have to pay for that loss, that is how history is written. If it was the opposite no one would stand up for defeated Israel. So time for a reality check, fast forward to 2008, and we have the same mentality as we had in 1948, get rid of the Jews, kill the Israelis, that is what the Palestinians teach their children. But still Israel is willing to sit down and discuss peace with its neighbors, the problem is, their is no one to talk to. Who represents the "peace loving Palestinians" Abbas, Hamas? If so why don't they arrest their terrorists instead of supporting them, why are they still teaching in schools that Israel is the enemy? I agree the Palestinians suffer, but the suffering is of their own making, they support and grow terrorists that kill innocent children, the wall stopped that, once they denounce terror the wall will come down. What would you do Lynn, if terrorists were blowing themselves up daily in your city?

Michael,

"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore, before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied... most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...

"In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution."  British author Henry Catton, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel"

It was a completely illegal land grab outside the "1/3" you speak of, just as Israel continues to do now in the "occupied" territories (i.e., the Palestinian part of the mandate).  So the cynical and deceiptful - not on your part but on the part of the zionists - BS about the Arab nations attacking simply to deny the fait accompli of the mandate and destroy the new infant state is just patently false.

Alan, One British author Henry Catton, does not make history. These cities if taken, were taken from the British if at all, and not from the Arabs. The fact is that six Arab armies attacked the state of Israel, upon its declaration, if they had not done so, the Arab Palestinians would now have a prosperous state. But lets move on, this endless discusion about history will lead us no where. The big question is, do we have a partner for peace? Do you have an answer? A democracy vs a group of terrorists.

"In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem's streets almost immediately. Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war. During that fateful April of 1948, 8 out of 13 major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state."  - "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by the People Press Palestine Book Project

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan... [Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off 'the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified."  - Ibid.

Alan, I am not a historian and will not enter into a detailed historical discussion with you. The big fact is, that if the Arab nations and the local Palestinians had accepted the UN ruling in 1948, like Israel accepted it, they would now have a state of their own. And we would not have this discussion. So lets move on and find a partner for peace, do you have any ideas who we can sit down with?

With all due respect, Michael, let's not just move on. I've recommended a downloadable book with 37 pages of such quotes, of which I've chosen three.  Have you read Jimmy Carter's book? Your information is just not accurate and your insistance that we just move on reflects why there is still so much strife in the area. It's not because the Arab League entered Palestine in 1948 to secure land that Israel was illegally grabbing.

And let's be careful throwing around the 'T' word.  Ever heard of Irgun/LEHI, the King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, Sabra, Shatilla?

The current illegal seige and collective punishment of Gaza?

Alan, is that your source, Jimmy Carter he is funded to the tune of $10 million every year by the Saudi government, so please give me a break, Jimmy will not bite the hand that feeds him, read Dershovitz "The Case For Israel", not just books funded by Arab money, try a little bit to be objective, just a little.

What is the point of rehashing history Alan? Will you find justice in that way. Yes I am aware and proud of the Irgun and Lehi, they fought the British, who are now our friends, so what has that got to do with today? Where is all this leading, are you another closet anti-semite?

Sorry Michael,  but history rules.  I am not a historian either,  but I want to know. A curious person will go back as far as the text goes.

Lynn, dear, I agree History rules, not fiction, and so far no one on this blog is quoting history, but books and columns written by Arab propagandists.

We can afford to be curious. Those in the thick of it can only resort to anger, resentment and despair that results in stones throwing, suicide bombings or bulldozing residences, olive tree excavation, humiliations and downright F16's, as the case may be.  Have we the right to ignore our responsibilty to learn history when we are the fortunate ones (for the time being) to be able to better influence foreign policy?

And yes, text is open to interpretation, so lets debate that.

Michael:

Do you really need to be so smug and patronizing?

"Lynn, dear"

Do you have to get so personally abusive - as you have with me in direct terms, whilst you reserve your more subtle attempted demolitions for Lynn apparently.

I have come across many people like you on a lot of blogs ... dyed in the wool zionists who are doing FAR more to stir up hatred against jews than any neo-nazi organization could do.

You and your ilk are causing immense damge.

It will be your fault - and those of your ilk - if there is another jewish progam.

Michael it could be argued that Jews also are anti-semitic.  It is plausible to suggest this when one considers the acceptance of support from pre-millennial dispensationalists, Christian fundamentalist lobbies that join with AIPAC. I thought Jews did not consider him the son of God. I know I don't, but I am an atheist.

But is it functional to use words?  Especially words that say I hate you and you hate me.  Duh!  We know there is a problem. Stating the obvious is not exploring the nature of the problem. In fact it is so tedious to hear the endless stream of editorial commentary.
Life's too short!

Gerry, dear is a term of indearment, I like Lynn, with her philosophical approach, please read her response, she is not offended, that is your  own interpretation and meaning that you add to things you hear and read. I am just applying logical thought to things I read and see, I am a scientist, what are you? An antagonist? Bringing up the Nazi's, or are you another anti-semite. This blog is about Pro-Israel, so far all I read are mostly Pro-Palestinian remarks, what happened to rational thought?

Lynn, I would love to have a debate on how to achieve peace in the ME, any suggestions, I keep getting stuck defending Israel's position.

Michael, may I suggest reading Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tania Reinhart, Baruch Kimmerling and other Israeli historians and authors instead of regurgitating zionist propaganda.
The war in 1948 was a culmination of years of struggle before. The Palestinians and Arabs have always voiced their opposition to the zionist project of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. It was the collusion between the British--the Balfour Declaration and subsequent colonial presence of the British in Palestine--which set the stage for the conflict. The British and the rest of the world refused to listen and to act to alleviate the concerns of the idigenous population. You want to discuss history please put things in context and analyze events in light of this context. History is not simply a cataloging of events it is first and foremost an analysis and interpretation of events and of facts.
It is always amazing to me that the creation of the state of Israel is always claimed to rest on international law and therefore legitimate while at the same time international law is dismissed and ignored when it does not serve the interests of zionism and its child the State of Israel. Isn't the right of return inshrined by legitimacy of international law and will because it has been affirmed repeatedly by the UN? Isn't the construction of settlements and transfer of population into occupied territories illegal under international law? Isn't the annexation of territory acquired by war illegal under international law? Please do not respond to this if you are simply going to regurgitate propaganda and rely on half truths. I am not interested in that.

Michael:

You admit to not being an historian and that you have no interest in history.

Maybe this is a personal attack - which you have no problem with yourself - but it occurs to me that what sums you up is:

"Don't confuse me with facts.  My mind is made up already."

And it occurs to me to warn Charles that his site is in danger of being taken over by you.

Michael dear, from your 12:57 pm remark. (This expression, "dear" reminds me of McCains' "My friends...")

"What would you do Lynn, if terrorists were blowing themselves up daily in your city? "

Returning the favor, of course.  But then they wouldn't be blowing themselves up because I wouldn't be illegally occupying their country and driving them into the sea.

Lynn, sorry if you took offense, none was intended, and I respect yours and everyones viewpoint, it just seems to me to be a very one sided blog, all Pro-Palestine, but I will shut up for a while if it will make you happy.

One other thought, the West bank is not their country, and Israel is not an occupier, if anything the Palestinians are occupying Israeli land, land ruled by the kings of Israel at one point, then by Romans, Turks, Greeks, Muslims, so who is to say to whom the land belongs? All this is open to interpretation. Good night and good luck. BTW, I voted for real change by Obama, not McCain.

" I am a scientist, what are you? An antagonist? Bringing up the Nazi's, or are you another anti-semite. This blog is about Pro-Israel, so far all I read are mostly Pro-Palestinian remarks, what happened to rational thought? "

What kind of scientist would reach the conclusion that being Pro-Palestinian implies irrational thought? That is what the logic of your statement implies. Some kind of logic I have not encountered before I suppose.

Michael, and who was there before Jews came and established their kingdoms? Why does history begins with the Jewsih kingdoms? Is this the result of judeocentric interpretation of history or is it the result of a supremcist ideology otherwise known as Zionism? The land belongs to those indigenous people who lived there for centuries. Yes there was a Jewish presence in Palestine and it ended. And again where is the respect for international law that you professed and referred to earlier? Forgive my ignorance I forgot that Israel is beyond reproach and that international law applies only if it suits Israel and its policies of expansion and of domination.

Aref, I did not claim that history begins with Jewish kingdoms, read carefully, I simply stated and state again that throughout history, Jews, Greeks, Turks, Romans and Muslims have all reigned over the land that is now Israel, therefore history cannot determine who has a claim on this land, and therefore Israel is not an occupier, no one is. The only way to settle this dispute is to stop fighting drop the use of force and sit down by one table and reach a compromise. All for Palestine will not wash, neither will all for Israel, all I am saying is, lets talk more and fight less. If you can convince Iran and Syria to stop funding terrorists, then maybe we can talk. Or can you guarantee that Hamas and Abbas will stop taking funds from Iran, and Syria?

The land I am sitting on was native American before it was Mexico and was taken by the US. Yes, my house is not really mine. At least I haven't been recruited to settle on expropriated land for cheap rent and ethnic cleansing in the last 60 years.

Perhaps this is veering off a bit, but rather than only discussing whether or not this project is provocative, getting into a political discussion, can the feasability of the project be discussed?

1.  This is a Frank Gehry project.  It was projected in 2000 that the cost would be 150 mil, now it's up to more that 250 mil.  Frank Gehry projects are notorious for cost over-runs.  The Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles ended up COSTING the contractor who built it, M.A. Mortenson (Minnesota) more than 26 million dollars (they sued for 43 and settled out of court-to avoid a COSTLY legal battle, ending up recovering only 17 mil owed them).

2. The project is not fully funded at TODAY'S cost.  Has anyone noticed the state of the world wide economy these days?  Only 150 has been raised and much of that is in PLEDGES.

3.  The concert hall was the center piece of the larger Grand Avenue project. (Just as this museum is part of a larger project) They ran out of money and Dubai had to rescue them.  Maybe Israel can do the same.

4.  England got smart  and cancelled their Gehry project due to funding.  They chose a less expensive design from another architect/builder and that one had to be scrapped too due to lack of funding.

Point being, this project is not fully funded at today's cost.  How the heck is the city of Jerusalem allowing it to go forward?  It seems the rightful issue of this being abhorant due to the location (on top of a Muslim cemetery) has been dismissed by those who approved it,  perhaps it would be a good idea to fight this thing using a different strategy, it's spelled B-O-O-N-D-O-G-G-L-E, since they don't understand morality, maybe they WILL understand cold hard cash.

Michael, if you were being terrorized, wouldn't you take funds from your allies, like Israel does to the tune of 9 billion annually from the USA among others?

More editorial commentary. "bla bla bla ... "like Shirley MacClaine would say. Yes there IS an argument. And SO?

Come on,  lets not take the dialogue to the lowest common denominator.  You know better,  you voted for Obama (though you ought to have voted for Nader as I should have).

Lynn, one, Israel does not use terror, the definition of terror is the use of force for the sole purpose of creating panic and fear in the civilian population. The opposite is true it is Israel's policy to minimize civilian fatalities and injuries. Two The funds Israel takes from the US are used for defense against for example rockets now fired on civilians daily, many of these systems like the Arrow project are defensive by nature designed to stop inbound rockets, and cannot harm anybody. Thirdly, the funds donated to Hamas are primarly used for offensive weapons, like rockets and suicide bombs that target civilians. You really can not compare the two entities. One, the one hand a modern democracy with the rule of law and on the other hand a terrorist organization that has stated as its purpose to exist to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. If the Palestinian are so peace loving why did they vote for Hamas to represent them, a majority of 60% did, and Hamas is by their own words a terrorist organization.

Frank Gehry-- from Barcelona, right?  Very cool architecture, if I'm remembering correctly-- whimsical, conical, mosaic structures.
If there wasn't such expense dedicated to imperial conquest, we'd have funds to buy great architects.  He could design a global temple on top of the one that's been rebuilt by multiple contenders.

And we wouldn't need a Museum to showcase tolerance. Tolerence would just be a standard principle.

Gerry, now, now, lets not get personal and name calling, and insulting, I do not do that, and this is not the purpose of this blog, I would recommend to Charles that this kind of language is not acceptable. I recommend Gerry that you check your facts, their is no sense arguing about facts, first check them out, then come back, and on the way clean up your language. Good night and good luck. :0)

Because Hamas was most closely representing their basic needs? Why did Israel incarcerate those elected Hamas officials?  And get recognized for human rights abuses for cutting off energy and food to Gaza TODAY?

Again, yes there is a problem, bla bla , you're the terrorist, I'm the terrorist and so on.

Frank Gehry is Canadian originally living in Los Angeles.  The very first pledge towards this project (40 million) came from Gary Winnick.  Global Crossing ring a bell?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E0DC153FF936A2575BC0A9629C8B63

Dirty money funding a very immoral project.  Hope they have a printing press on hand for the rest of the funds needed to fully fund it. (BTW, he hasn't fully met his pledge yet)

" the definition of terror is the use of force for the sole purpose of creating panic and fear in the civilian population. The opposite is true it is Israel's policy to minimize civilian fatalities and injuries. "
First the accepted definition of terror is the use or the threat to use violence to achieve political goals. This means that all states are terrorist because they use coersion and violence to impose their rule.
Second, may I suggest that you dig your head from the sand it is burried in. What do you call dropping a one tonne bomb and wiping out a whole block in the middle of a densely populated city? Minimization of civilian casualties? Rational thinking and scientific objective assessment? Wake up and smell the coffee.

All right, Michael, you are clearly a troll.  Jimmy Carter a shill for the Saudis?  You're 'proud' of Irgun?  I'm a (self-hating) closet antisemite? You've revealed yourself for who you are.  Shanda.

Adios. Shalom.

Aref, First it is the killing of civilians to achieve political goals that defines terror, and  I challange you to prove to me one example whereas Israel intentionally killed civilians, it has happened but not as a policy but as a mistake, a mistake that happens in all wars. And in all cases Israel has apologized for these mistakes, even in a case when it was not Israel that caused the death of civilians, but Palestinians.
Second, Aref, no need to be insulting, we are trying to have a civil discussion. We can disagree without getting nasty about it. I just demand the truth and not invented fantasies and lies as a base for discussion. Talking about coffee, I think all people should sit down with a finjan of coffee and discuss their differences in a civil way, don't you agree? I make a great cup of freshly ground and roasted coffee, over coals in a copper finjan.

Alan, I was asking a question not making a statement, no need to take offense, we can disagree without fighting. Jimmy Carter does receive funds from the Saudi's, a fact, please do your research. The Irgun fought bravely against huge odds the British army, and on their deaths the IDf was founded, another fact.
As far as being a troll if that what it takes to speak the truth I am proud to wear the badge of a troll. Read Dershowitz's The case for Israel, Dershowitz is a respected lawyer, not a troll. Shalom and good night, Michael.

Alan, check out the book: "The Real Jimmy Carter" you may learn something about him.

Dropping a one tonne bomb on a residential building is no accident. It is a deliberate act and the consequences of that act--killing of civilians--is well known in advance.
You say it is a war, well then, there usually are two parties--maybe more--to a war. If yopu can justify the killing of civilians because it is a war then the same logic should apply to the other side. But again, the same sickenning Zionist supremacist ideology is at play here "Israel is above reproach and does no bad deeds".
It is people like you that are obstacles to peace, because you refuse to see the facts and refuse to acknowledge the wrongs and injustices done. Not only you refuse to see them but you justify them and blame the victim instead, like a rapist blaming his victim for tempting him. You sicken me. You call yourself a peacemaker but I am willing to bet that if tomorrow you are called to go drop a bomb on a Palestinian home, or demolish one because they don't have a permit to build you would not hesitate a second. I do not justify suicide bombongs and do not justify the killing of anyone. Yes, indeed power and the lust for power and domination that has been the creed of Zionism is a corruption of the humanity not only of their victims but of those who are committed Zionists like yourself. This is what Hannah Arendt meant by the "banality of evil". Evil becomes so routine like a desk job, functionaries deciding who to jail and what to bomb and then they justify it by "doing their job" or as a necessity to maitain the "Jewish character" of the state and nobody realizes to what extent racism oozes from such statement and to what extent their own humanity has been stripped and brutalized.
Michael, you claim to be a scientist and a rational thinker, however you have proven beyond any doubt that you are nothing but a a sheep and a brainwashed individual who cannot think independently and outside the framework of a corrupt, xenophobic, racist and supremacist ideology. You can have the last word because I will not respond to your regurgitations--I have heard them so many times.

Charles, you take my comments off and allow this blatant nonsense of Aref to continue on a Pro-Israel blog, I protest, cut him off, this is nothing but BS, not one grain of truth, and I will not respond to such complete nonsense.

For your information one more time Aref, Israel is a democratic nation ruled by law, and it is its policy to defend civilians. If your cowardly friends fire their rockets from civilian homes, then yes once in a while civilians will get hit, tell your cowardly friends not to hide behind women's dresses. Good night and good riddance, I have tried, no use talking to blocked minds.

As Al Franken would say "ditto-head".

Lynn, who is the dittohead? I have never listened to Rush, and I voted for Oabama, I speak truth to the masses, that have been misled for decades by lies generated by Arab dictators, so many times that they can no longer distinguish the truth from falsehood. Repeating a lie thousands of times does not make it a truth. I am sorry to break up your world view, but the truth cannot be denied, read more about the subject you wish to debate. I read over twenty newspapers, periodicals, websites and TV news stations, then try and form an unbiased informed opinion. How many newspapers do you read? How many periodicals do you read? How many books on this subject have you read? How many news TV telecasts do you watch? I watch CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS and BBC so I get a balanced view, and am able to filter out the truth from lies. So please get informed beyond one TV station AL-Jazeera before entering into an intelligent conversation on the ME.

Bloggers: what world are you all living in? What are your news sources? This is starting to sound unreal, surreal, are you coming at me from a parallel universe? Try: The Economist, The LA Times, The NY Times, The London Times, The Jerusalem Post, Debka, MSNBC.com, CNN.com  all good solid sources, to read the real news, not fabricated fairy tales, Arabian Nights tales, please.

Democracy Now.org.,  the truth behind the truth.  Like the "drug war" in Bolivia which is todays' episode.  Evo Morales stuck it to Bush, who allegedly tied the auto industry bailout to free-trade pacts in Columbia 12 Nov. episode. The drug "war" is really the drug SUPPLY chain to undermine the infrastructure of black communities and other underclass in the inner cities in the US.  Heard of Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News? An investigative reporter who was targeted by the powerful intelligence operations, lost his job for reporting the real news and committed suicide 10 December,  my sons' birthday, a couple years ago.

Incidentally, I have one of Dershowitzs' books. "Preemption".

Lynn, Get "The Case for Israel", Amazon for $7.00 new or $5.00 used.

Michael:

"Troll".

That really sums you up.

You are a jewish nightmare - you and others like you.

I visit sites, e.g. iraqwar, where sundry people bang on about jews being to blame for everything.

I try to moderate things and introduce tolerance, but then along come trolls like you, who demolish any attempt at balance.

I have lost count of the number of times that I have tried to explain that not all jews are zionists, but you persist and push a radical zionist line which alienates all moderate people everywhere.

Do you have a death-wish, or something?

If I could not retain my intellectual and moral integrity, then such as you would have turned me into a "jew hater" many years ago.

Such as you are the worst enemies of both Israel and judaism.

For as long as zionists, like you, infect blogs which are intended to promote peace, there is NO chance of peace ever happening.

You and your kind push even me to imagine that you represent "all jews".

Heck Charles allows you to take over his site ... which is what trolls tend to do.

Whatever, Michael, you and your kind are the very worst enemies of jewish people.

You spout misinformation which is easily used to fuel a nascent attempt to blame jews for everything, as the current economic world implodes.

Gery wrote "Do you have a death-wish, or something?" Not necessarily. Zionism never seriuosly fought antisemitism when it mattered in the period from the foundation of the zionist movement up to the nazi holocaust. Zionism accepted antisemitism as inevitable and endemic and that there is no hope for jews of ever fully being integrated and assimilated in any society but their own. This what Herzl wrote in his little pamphlet "The Jewish State". Zionism justifies its existence by antisemitism and therefore fanning the flames of hatred may be a deliberate attempt at demonstrating that the zionist thesis is correct and will always be.
A book I have read quite sometime and maybe very hard to find is "Zionism in The Age of The Dictators" by Lenni Brenner in which he shows to what extent the zionist movement was willing to collaborate with nazis and the fascists. Hannah Arendt's essay "Zionism Reconsidered" also talks about the acceptance of antisemitism by the zionists.
That is why I believe the equation of anti-zionism and critique of the State of Israel are equated with anti-semitism: to demonstrate the continuity of jew-hatred and to make it harder for people to criticize either lest they be labeled anti-semite. This also serves the purpose of blurring the lines between zionist, Israel and Jew using the words interchangeably again making it hard for people to distinguish between them and to criticize.

One last word about "Trolls" the best approach is not to feed them by responding to them. There sole purpose is to divert and hijack the discussion and by responding to them we are actually playing into their hand. So please everyone do not respond to and do not feed the Trolls. Michael is a Troll and his sole purpose here is not to seek understanding and peace but to disrupt any attempt at reaching such understanding by spewing his venom.

This is a fascinating discussion.  I lived and worked in the Middle East from early 1945 to late 1947.  I came to know and respect Jewish refugees, "Arab Jews," Muslims and Middle East Christians. I think that to understand somewhat the events of the past century with respect to Palestine/Israel one needs to realize that a few ardent Zionists (including Christian Zionists) have exploited the incomprehensible tragedy of the holocaust for political ends. This in turn provoked, understandably, a reaction from Palestinians (of all religions) to resist Europeans who wanted to claim Palestine as their homeland. We need to realize that we are all humans and all equal as human beings.  I recommend the book entitled The Zionist Connection by Alfred M. Lilienthal, first published in 1978, for reliable historical information on this international tragedy.  Modern Zionism, an ideology, has not brought peace and security to anyone. Non-violence, respect for all humans, and reconciliation are the solution. Any American, including American Jews, who is not willing to give up his home, farm, or land to native Americans who lived here first and who would like to reclaim their land should not expect Palestinians to give up their claims to their ancestral lands to Jews who lived in other regions for centuries.   

Thank you Pearl. I agree with you.
"Any American, including American Jews, who is not willing to give up his home, farm, or land to native Americans who lived here first and who would like to reclaim their land should not expect Palestinians to give up their claims to their ancestral lands to Jews who lived in other regions for centuries."
Yes, Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionsit zionism which led to foundation of the Irgun and Stern gang, and then the Likud and who is the inspiration to many hardline zionist right-wing, he well understood that. His proposal was that the Jewish State must build an "Iron Wall", i.e. become such a powerful and ruthless military force as to dissuade the Arabs from ever dreaming of attacking it and regaining what they claim as theirs. It hasn't worked has it? There is no military solution to the problem. Also nationalism has bever brought peace nor prosperity to the world.
A new kind of thinking has to emerge. This new thinking will have to begin with the rejection of "us versus them" and move to "us together".

It is good to see a solid consensual core here.

You are right, Aref, that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, but that is practically impossible to start with, i.e. it takes a while for a troll to reveal itself for what it really is, by which time a lot of damage has been done.

Moving on:

It is not directly on topic, but I am picking up on what Pearl, Aref and some others have alluded to ... which is the question of how the state of Israel should be constituted/how what was originally Palestine (Canaan, if you prefer) should be divided-up.

For as long as I have been actively aware of problems in the ME - ever since I read "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" over fifty years ago - it has been more or less clear to me that some kind of unification is needed, so as to attempt to undo the terrible damage done by the London Empire and sundry other European empires.

At least, under the Ottoman Empire (whatever its faults), all manner of people lived in relative harmony for centuries ... there was a 'unity of diversity', if you get what I mean, e.g. people kinda muddled along in a way which actually worked.  (Same applies worldwide.)

But in sailed the London Empire (especially, but not exclusively) and sliced and diced artificial geo-political lines on the map of the world ... and that destroyed the albeit muddled harmony which existed before.

To cut to the chase:

Israel is one tragic outcome of European colonialism.  But given that it exists, what should be done to unwind the damage?

A "two state solution"?

I hardly think so, e.g. muslims will shortly outnumber jews in Israel-proper, never mind the occupied territories.

How about a "one state solution"?

Idealistic?

Not really.  It is the way things always used to muddle along.

Sorry not to have been more specific about things but, after all, this is just a comment on some blog and I don't feel inclined to write a book anyway.