India is already a member of the Nuke Owner's Club.

We can either admit that reality is what it is and make the best of it, or we can keep our head in the sand, pretending we can keep India from getting what it already has.

I say we should deal with reality, because we can never wish it away or 'Economic Sanction' it away (See: 'Cuba') no matter how many votes such window-dressing may get from some constituency or other.

In a foolish move in 1947, the USA supported the succession of Pakistan from India--thereby alienating India, the largest democracy in the world. The USA did this as 'a-hole buddies' to the British, who had been humiliated by Ghandi & company. We are still being played by the Pakistanis, Now to the tune of $10-billion in aid in return for nothing.
While much of India remains impoverished, they have more intellectuals then we have people. In the end, they are more likely to supply us with technology that we need then the other way around. This new deal does not worry me in the slightest. About time we allied with India. Long past due.

Trollstein, America made its biggest mistake in 1948 to recognize that Zionist state. An artificial state created by Europeans for their problems. The Palestinians have been paying for Europe's problem ever since.

Since the BJP came to power and their supporters in key positions of the Indian Government, Christians have been attacked and persecuted. Pastors are being intimidated and attacked, churches are being damaged or destroyed; Christians are made to feel unwanted and live in fear.

Hindus have made great contributions in business and technology in the US, but so have Christians made enormous contributions to India in the all levels of education and in social and humanitarian work among India's impoverished masses.

Christians and Christian institutions are violently attacked several hundred times each year. A landmark event was the case of the Australian Graham Staines and family. Graham Staines, 58, and his sons, Philip, 10, and Timothy, 8, were burnt alive when Hindu fascists doused their jeep in which they were sleeping with kerosene and set it ablaze. When the three terrified occupants tried to break out of the vehicle, the Hindu mob pushed them back into the burning inferno. Staines' crime was that he had devoted 34 years of his life to serving lepers in India.

Nuns have also been gang-raped.

These attacks occur in states where Hindu political parties are in power.

Remember Al Nakba:
This was NOT a discussion about Israel. Those who take every subject and divert the topic to Israel are the biggest of all racists. Their very existence and core-purpose is to punish Jews whenever they get the chance and even when the chance does NOT avail itself organically. However, since you made this comparison:
The succession of Pakistan from India provides a very important lesson and close comparison to the independence of Israel. Pakistan declared its independence about a year before Israel. It did so without any mandate from any international tribunal, while Israel had its legal mandate from two such world treaty organizations, as well as EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERMISSION from the previous legitimate landowners (the Turks--in the Treaties of Versailles and San Remo). The Hebrews were the legitimate legal title-holders while the Pakistanis were merely disgruntled Indian nationals.
After the succession, literally millions of Hindus packed their bags and crossed the border out of Pakistan and conversely, a few million Muslims went the opposite direction, which is a natural and common occurrence when a country declares independence based on ethnic identity. Of course, these Hindus have long since been absorbed into Indian society and do NOT live in so called "refugee camps" expecting to some day return (with their offspring) to Pakistan (once Pakistan abandons their silly idea of being its own country). Moreover the only difference between ethnic Pakistanis and Indians is their religion, while there are more significant ethnic and cultural divisions between Arabs and Israelis--such as language, clothing, food, etc..
Contrary to your stubborn (and inaccurate) claim:
"An artificial state created by Europeans for their problems. The Palestinians have been paying for Europe's problem ever since. "
Israel was NOT the sole result of WW2 and its inhabitants were NOT primarily from Europe. 750,000 Israelis came from neighboring Arab states, quite similar to the migration of Muslims into Pakistan from India. Another few hundred thousand Hebrews were already living there in 1948. The Jews were originally granted their legal independence and statehood at the same time as the Arabs gained their independence from Turkey (1919). It just took a holocaust for the world to appreciate the necessity for a REFUGE for Jews to avoid the age old habit of being burned to death.
As for all your other claims of Hindu injustices, I am no eye-witness and unlike you, do not substitute such second and third hand assertions for proof. I am sure some of the claims are probably accurate. I am equally sure that violence occurs against every religion and ethnic group to some degree. The typical Muslim habit is to ignore and dismiss the provocations (their own injustices against others) and embellish and exaggerate the injustices done against them. I don't know what the Christian situation in India is like expect to say that they can not be more then a small minority and also, Mother Theresa was HIGHLY and WIDELY respected by Hindus world-wide. I have seen her picture on the walls of Hindu Indians literally all over the world.

Trollstein, I agree with you on two counts. The first is that yes, this article has absolutely nothing to do with Israel and shouldn't enter into the discussion. But dude, your much too intelligent to resort to the usual tactic of responding to criticisms of Israel by brandishing the critic as a racist.

And secondly, our policy towards nuclear non-proliferation is no theocracy shall own a nuclear weapon. I personally don't like the thought of new nuke reactors springing up ANYWHERE, but it will mean job orders here and India will provide a bit more transparency on India's part. Given their progress over the past 20 years, I would think the Indian government would not risk using nukes in any capacity other than as a deterrent.

I have to wonder if this will also act as a nudge to Pakistan to buy more conventional weapons from us...

Jay:
You wrote:
" . . your much too intelligent to resort to the usual tactic of responding to criticisms of Israel by brandishing the critic as a racist. . . "
Thank you .. I think . .
Not all criticisms of Israel are on equal footing and I do not brandish all equally. There are a variety of categories, ranging from justified criticism of Israeli policies and / or actions, through false accusations (where the accuser is merely innocently misinformed), all the way across numerous other permutations (some subtle and some profound) to the most egregious abusers. And here is my exact point:
Typically, people who dislike African Americans do not revolve their lives around their hatred of Blacks (some do--but the vast majority do not). In each parallel example, the racial/ethnic or religious hater goes about their daily business and their bigotry occupies a secondary priority for them. Most would just as soon prefer not to even have to think about the group who causes them their rage. Singly excluded from this traditional description is the hyper-obsessive anti-Jew. Such people categorize their lives as (first and foremost), to beat on the Jews at each and every opportunity and even when there is no logical opportunity--they create an opportunity. Thus, when the conversation is about shoes and it instantly morphs into a discussion of Jews, this is a telltale sign of hyper-obsessive Jew-hating.
For example, clipping from another web blog:
"Jews are thieves and that is all there is to it.QED. Jews Worldwide should be ashamed -- utterly ashamed -- and not trying to debate their historical myths to escape the TRUTH !!! . . . Jews are thieves and that is all there is to it.QED. . . . This Anti Semitism nonsense !!!!! . . . MOST Jews are Zionists and in the long run, ALL Jews are Zionists. There is absolutely nothing wrong with conflating the terms "Jews" and "Zionists" . . . Have you no shame ??? [addressing myself] . . . "
{end of quote}
Obviously the foregoing is an extreme example. However, it gets the point across. Throughout recorded history, at various times, Jews have been forced to universally hang their heads in shame. There has generally been some reason or another on the mind of the anti-Jews, such as the murder of Jesus or the poisoning of Gentile wells or Jews being responsible for the Black Plague or, (in the early Nazi days), Jews being blamed for the introduction of African blood into the pure Aryan bloodlines. Of course, these reasons seem nonsensical today but at the time, they were sufficient to burn entire Jewish towns. Today the universal reason for hatred of Jews is the Mid East conflict and its alleged surrogates, such as 9-11 and Iraq. Thus, when a person changes the subject to that of alleged (generally manufactured) Jewish crimes against humanity, my conclusion is that they are not only racists but the worst type on the 'periodic-table' of racists.
Have a nice weekend.

We Indians believe that Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence.
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.(President and co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence. Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s legendary leader, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi.)

This poster named 'Arun' apparantly would like us to believe he is the fabled granson of M.K. Ghandhi. He, like another poster has turned the conversation away from India and toward his obsession with Israel. So my same comments on this subject are directed towards him (whomever he be in reality). Plus, he speaks for all Indians using the royal "we":
"We Indians believe that Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence." In reality, opinion within India towards Israel varies just like it does everywhere. After a fresh bomb attack on a RR train, the average Indian national becomes more sympathetic towards Israel. However, the fact that India is about 30% Muslim can not be detached from their sometime dispute over Israel.
I quote from the above post:
"The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful."
Incorrect. It was not a single 'warped mind', it was a warped mindset which was shared not only be the average German but by the average Arab. BTW: With the exception of Jordan, all other Arab nations were officially allied with the Nazis in WW2. This, to spite the fact that England, the USA and France were almost solely responcible for the Arab independance from Turkey after WW1 and therefore, the USA and England were official allies to the Arabs in WW1--while Germany was officially the Arabs enemy in WW1 as they were allied with Turkey.
He writes:
"Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead . . . "
Israel is the most advanced nation on earth, with more inventions and innovations of science and medicine there anywhere else (per-capita). His statement is therefore outragious and rediculous.
"I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive?"
More nonsense. The security barrier is intended to keeps the proverbial snakes out.
"Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you?"
Yes, and I would be a happier guy if I slept with Wynona Ryder on my left and Angelina Jolie on my right. Sadly for them, the world does not provide such luxuries.
This guy is a joke. The little known secret is that most Indians do not have that high a regard for Mahatma Gandhi. He is held in higher esteem in the USA then he is in India. (Like David Hastlehoff--being far more popular in Germany then in the USA.) Gandhi's grandson lacks even a modest amount of his grand-dad's (limited) wisdom.

"I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive?"

Nah. We'd expect to live in the pit secure and dead!
Now That's livin'!!

My friends, this whole issue is another vile fabrication of that insurrectionist Emmanuel Goldstein!!
Gaze upon his image, and join in the daily Two Minutes Hate.

Brother, have you heard the good news? The ration of chocolate has been raised to 26-Grams per week!

Praise Be To Big Brother!!

Trollstein said, in part, "Incorrect. It was not a single 'warped mind', it was a warped mindset which was shared not only be the average German but by the average Arab." Good point, this is like saying:Scripture teaches no one is guilty for the sins of another. We all enter the world innocent of the misdeeds of our parents. This includes every Jewish child.
Yet the Bible also teaches we can become guilty of the sin of another by sympathy with it. Christ said the Pharisees were guilty of the murder of Abel and all righteous blood from the beginning of the world. (Mat. 23:35) Why? Because the Pharisees persecuted righteousness. Had they been present in the time of Abel, they would have murdered Abel. Thus, according to Christ, it is possible to become spiritually guilty of a sin, such as murder or adultery, even without physically committing the act. The will is there. All that is lacking is the opportunity.
Modern or rabbinic Judaism is a product of those very Pharisees whom Christ excoriated, and who ultimately had Him crucified. The authoritative Universal Jewish Encyclopedia explains:
The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent without a break through all the centuries from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a great deal is still in existence.. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature.. The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Article on Pharisaism, p. 474
If a Jewish child is born into an orthodox Jewish family, he innocently enters a religious system entirely obedient to those who masterminded the crucifixion of Jesus. The Pharisees and their vast, rambling anti-bible, the Talmud, possess greater authority for religious Jews than does the Old Testament. As the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms: Thus the ultimate authority for orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory. Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Authority? p. 637.
What does the Talmud teach about Jesus? It says He seduced and deceived the people. Git.56b-57a. He was a bastard, his mother Mary being a whore San.106b. He practiced sorcery and enticed His race to apostasy. San.43a. He was a fool. San.67a. He was stoned, burned, decapitated and strangled in His death. San. 106b, Git.57a. He was excommunicated for the thought of seducing a woman and in His shame fell down and worshipped a brick. San.107b. He is now in hell, languishing in boiling hot excrement. Git.56a. The Talmud is emphatic that it was necessary to kill Jesus because He was one of the three worst enemies of Judaism. Git.56a; a false prophet who seduced and deceived the people. Git.56b-57a.
Is the modern Jew guilty of the death of Christ? The answer is simple. If he agrees with the Talmud that the Pharisees did the right thing by having Jesus crucified, then that Jew today is as guilty as the Jewish mob that sided with the Pharisees 2,000 years ago, shouting Crucify Him, crucify Him. Mk. 15:13. If, however, the modern Jew disassociates himself from loyalty to the Pharisees and their claims against Christ, then he is free from any guilt.
Unfortunately, amid the shock waves of Mel Gibsons Passion, many evangelical Christian leaders are rushing forward to absolve all Jews of any spiritual guilt concerning the crucifixion. Such pandering not only makes God’s law of none effect, it attempts to free the Jews from a burden of guilt they themselves invited. To hasten the crucifixion of Christ, the Jewish leaders said, His blood be upon us and upon our children. Mk. 27:25. All adult Jews who still support the pharisaic system which crucified Christ are thus linked in spiritual guilt with those who actively accomplished the act.
Of course, anyone, such as a gentile Satanist, who approves of the crucifixion, or a Christian who becomes apostate (Heb. 6:6), is spiritually guilty of crucifying Christ. Rabbinic Judaism however, because it constitutes the "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9) uniquely incurs blame for Christ's death upon all Jews who give themselves to it.
During the past century, Jewish apologists, for purposes of ecumenical harmony with Christians, have referred to Jesus in such terms as a great teacher. Such a description is found nowhere in rabbinic Judaism’s most sacred repository of authority, the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism, despite efforts to whitewash it, remains of all great religions (including Islam) the most vehemently opposed to the claims of Christ. To be a religious, observant Jew is to embrace the Talmud and its blasphemous opinion of Christ.
Someday, the Bible teaches, a remnant of Jews out of the Great Tribulation will believe on the One their fathers crucified. Yet for the present, the church must heed Christ?s warning to Beware of the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees. Matt. 16:6. In other words: Beware of Judaism. Paul also warns the church, referring to unbelieving Jews as enemies(Rom. 11:28) who both killed the Lord Jesus and prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men. I Thess. 2:15
The Jews were given transcendent spiritual light, first at Sinai, and then through their prophets. When they rejected that light, they were plunged into incredible darkness. While individual Jews may not necessarily be held guilty of such apostasy, the fact is Jewish leadership and institutions remain formidably opposed to Christianity. Moses warned the Jews that if they rejected God’s law, they would be cursed above all nations. Deut. 28:15. They not only rejected God’s law, but crucified its giver, Jesus Christ. Christ said that the House of Israel, after its rejection of Him, would be left desolate. Lk.13:35.
Today, no evangelical leader has the privilege of removing guilt from Jews who still reject their Messiah and embrace the teaching of His murderers. Christ has both a long-standing love-affair and quarrel with the Jewish nation. He will settle that quarrel some day on His own terms, at last obtaining faith, obedience, and righteousness from what scripture repeadedly describes as a "stiff-necked people."

And what has this to do with India??

Trollstein, my training is in physics, not history. I've seen some of your posts and while I can't comment on the authenticity of the facts you quote regarding the creation of Israel (because I don't have the time to read up on the subject), I can at least say that you can make a coherent argument. Have you seen some of the ramblings posted here at MJ??!?!?! So, take it as a compliment.

Going back and reading Remember Al Nakba's comment, the only implied criticism is his use of the word Zionist as that has a negative connotation for some people. Frankly, in those three sentences, he's more critical of America and Europe for the creation of the state of Israel, not the Jewish people in general. And remember, Jewish idenity is not defined in a one-to-one correspondence with the state of Israel. And he sure as hell didn't say anything about "Jewish crimes against humanity". His introduction and the quote you posted are, at least to me, in two different categories.

I would also like to add that if you were a mind-reader, you could probably a find a few people hyper-obsessing about hating blacks and mexicans. Yeah, people who think that all our country's woes are due to massive influx of people from Central and South America. Sorry, I don't see hating Jews as being a unique phenomenon other than possessing an unprecedented longevity.

And by the way, do you really believe in a non-trivial taxonomy in labeling racists? I mean, the peoriodic table implies an immense complexity in the way electrons arrange themselves into orbitals surrounding the nucleus. It says that you can find sets of atoms that despite having different numbers of protons and neutrons, will display similar chemical properties that depend on the number of electrons laying in the outermost orbit. So, all the of the so-called noble gases, despite having different atomic weights, are all fairly non-reactive due to their outermost orbital containing eight electrons, or possessing a filled orbital, and thus display no affinity towards gaining and losing electric charge. Or that the elements in the 1st column, which includes sodium and potassium, possess a single electron in their outermost orbital so tend to lose that electron and combine with some other element that gains the lost electron to form an electrical bond holding together a new molecule? Let's consider the quantum numbers numbers you learned about in high school chemistry class. Remember those from constructing those orbital diagrams? You have to solve a 3-dimensional partial differential equation by first separating the variables which assumes that the electron's motion in each direction is independent of the other dimensions. Just to find the function giving the electron's radial motion, one must assume a power series expansion of the solution and one finds that the only way for that power series to be a finite solution is to terminate the series. Thus, one naturally arrives at an equation that shows the electron's distance from the nucleus is quantized (the "n" quantum number)and not continuous as predicted by using Newton's 2nd Law and Maxwell's four equations. Now, that is just for the radial motion and not the longitudinal and latitudinal motions. And the spin is a another story. I'll leave that for you to figure out. Oh, and that was just for the hydrogen atom.

So, do you really want to assign that much complexity in how you classify racists instead of people experiencing and using fear and ignorance?

The post signed by Ibrahim is lifted whole cloth from www.truthtellers.org/jewishguiltarticle.html.
I find his attempt to come on like a scholar when he is merely a plagiarist of bad scholarship telling.

The US-India nuclear deal is important not for solving energy issues but for geo-strategic reasons.
Both India and the US realize that the true rival in the future will be China and they need to be allied against dominance by that huge country, which is flexing its muscles everywhere (ask the Viets, Taiwanese and even the Japanese).
I think this is a seminal moment not just for the US & India, but for the world as it redesigns the strategic equations for this century.

Mr. Ibrahim:
I hardly know where to begin responding. I can not possibly cover all your varied topics so I am forced to skip around a bit.
Firstly, Jesus did not invent his religion to which he is attributed credit. He was the political leader of a group of very strict Jews known as the Essenes. He was prophesized as their messiah and therefore considered a 'God-anointed king", not a 'high priest'. The Essenes fundamentally disagreed with all other sects of Judaism which included the Sadducees and the Pharisees. However, it was the Sadducees, NOT the Pharisees who were primarily in day-to-day control of the temple and the politics of Judea. Moreover, regardless of what the Roman Gospels report, it was the Romans who murdered Jesus with a traditional and patently Roman form of execution, the crucifix. The Roman prefect Pilate was said to have hung a sign on the cross saying: "King of the Jews" (not high-priest).
"His blood be upon us and upon our children"
Who speaks in that manner? No person or group I know of or ever heard about, (except for this ridiculous claim lodged against all Jews ever to be born). Here is a man who has done neither harm or crime and yet the Jewish mob is alleged to be so hungry for his blood that they are willing to expose all their offspring (for eternity) to damnation? If he had done a crime then there would be no reason to welcome eternal guilt. If he had done no crime then there would be no reason to demand his blood. In fact, Jewish law was very strict on the subject of capitol punishment. There were a very short list of crimes for which capitol punishment was permitted. There had to be two witnesses to the same capitol crime and the accused was entitled to a trial by the Sanhedrin (supreme court) and a lawyer. It would have been impossible for the high-court to have convened on the eve of a high-holiday such as Passover. Furthermore, there is not one speck of evidence anywhere in written antiquity to support the Gospel story that it was a "tradition" among Jews to "release any criminal--on the eve of any holiday". The entire story is mainly a fable.
Also, Jesus was initially intended to resurrect (3 days later) but to STAY AROUND and usher in the "Kingdom of God". Mark 9:1~ And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." This was the original Essene prophecy. When that failed to materialize, the group split and the most zealot Jesus people began to rely on improvised reality. None more so then Paul, who never met Jesus but claimed to know more about the master's teachings then Jesus' own brother James.
THE CULT OF PAUL (“The Book of Hyram” by C. Knight and R. Lomas)“
A radically new, and phenomenally successful, version of the story of Jesus was about to arise. A man from Tarsus {Turkey}, the son of Jewish converts, became a Roman citizen and changed his name from the Hebrew 'Saul' to the Roman equivalent 'Paul'. This Jewish citizen of the Roman Empire from Turkey set himself up as the scourge of the rebellious group of Jews in and around Jerusalem. It is said that Saul persecuted Christians, but this was impossible as there were no such people. The followers of Jesus and, after his death, of his brother James the Just remained Jews and did not become members of Paul's new Christian religion. Christianity was a later cult devel­oped by Saul of Tarsus exclusively to attract pagan converts throughout the broader Roman Empire – people who were already inclined towards the nature-based dying and rising god theme.

According to the New Testament, Paul underwent a trauma after which he claimed that he alone was given special insight into the meaning of Jesus' mission directly from God. Paul claimed:

But when it pleased God . . . to reveal his son in me, that I might preach it to the gentiles."

The word 'gentiles' has become respectable in Christian thinking because it is taken as being a Jewish description of Christians, but it meant no such thing at the time that Paul was preaching his bizarre creed. It was a word used by the followers of Jesus and James to describe the pagans who did not believe in the God of the Jews.

Paul quickly found himself at total odds with James because the story he was telling about James's brother Jesus was so outrageous. It is evident that Paul was prepared to do anything to get his way; he even admits that he is happy to lie if that is what is required:

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men .. .

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize?

So run, that ye may obtain .. .

I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air.”

The story that Paul had created was only loosely connected to the actions of the recently dead Jesus and his followers, but it did have a great deal to do with Roman tastes in theology. In Cyprus, Egypt, Turkey and Rome Paul's followers wrote the Gospels that make up the New Testament, whilst back in Israel the people that Jesus had once led became followers of James and forceful opponents of the new religion that Paul was busily inventing.

Paul's new cult of Christianity was squarely rooted in the Canaanite peasant theology of dying and rising nature gods and only retained a few misunderstood elements of the once supreme astral {Essene / Jesus} cult. The Bright Morning Star that marked the birth of a Jewish messiah became just a pretty Christmas star that hovered miraculously over the stable where Jesus was born. The Sun was relegated to become a halo highlighting the heads of the righteous. Male circumcision, the great covenant with God, that was claimed to have endured from the time of Abraham, was rejected because the potential recruits of the Roman Empire were not happy to pay this par­ticularly painful price.

The New Testament tells the story of Jesus from the perspective of Paul, and it tries to establish the idea that the followers of the crucified Jesus were Christians in their churches. They were not – they were Jews. . . .

. . . The nature cult created in the name of Jesus came less from the beliefs of his real followers than it did from Paul's own upbringing in Tarsus. Every autumn the young Saul, as he then was known, would have watched the great funeral pyre on which the local god was ritually burnt. God was now dead, but he would arise again in the spring (Easter). Furthermore, it is known that Tarsians worshipped saviour gods (known as theoisoteres)' so it is little wonder that Paul's 'new' religion of the 'Risen Christ' was so easy for pagans to accept – it was far from original and built upon well-established traditions.

This can be seen very clearly in Paul's attitude to blood. The idea of crucifixion was horrific to all Jews, and blood was something to be avoided at all costs, yet Paul's concept of Jesus Christ rested on the power of his spilt blood, and also of course on the sacrificial impulse which had driven the worship of Moloch. Even today Christians ritually drink the blood of Christ.

This concept of the ritual imbibing of the blood of a sacrificial human victim is about as far removed from Jewish thinking as it is possible to get. But this nauseating idea was well accepted amongst the followers of the oldest of nature cults. Respected writer AN Wilson comments on Paul's inspiration for such an idea:

Just as the worshippers of Mithras, in his native Tarsus, could stand beneath a platform and catch the cascade of blood falling on them from the slaughtered bullock, so Paul could bathe in the blood of the crucified and find that the life of the Messiah had become his own. He was the Christ. Just as Paul's contemporaries in Tarsus believed that the demi-god Herakles {A.K.A. ‘Hercules’} – with one human and one immortal parent – had, in his descent into the realms of death, become the savior of his people, so Jesus 'gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father'.

. . . .As the ‘Pauline’ cult multiplied in the countries around the Mediterranean, the theology of the Essenes continued, with daily prayers at sunrise and sunset. As we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, they kept to the solar cal­endar because they intended to keep in harmony with God's laws, 'the laws of the great light of heaven'." But their hoped-for Apocalypse was not long in coming. In 62 CE James was murdered, and Paul died soon afterwards. According to Josephus, in The Jewish War, the Jews finally rose up against their enemy in 66 CE. They fought a terrible war in their attempt to create the kingdom of heaven on the earth of Israel.

The scrolls found at Qumran tell us that these Essenes expected their war to last forty years . . . They also believed the battle would have a cosmic dimension, with part of it to be played out in heaven. Angelic armies were under the command of 'The Prince of Light' – who was also referred to as Melchizedek (the priestly line from which the Bible says Jesus claimed descent). . . . . Yahweh would {in time} intervene to annihilate all evi1. “

{end of quote}

Most Jews believe that Jesus was a false Messiah but that he was of minor consequence vis-a-vis Yahweh and they hold no animosity towards him. In Jewish history there have been literally dozens of people who claimed official messiah-ship and like Jesus, they are all seen equally as "also-rans".

As far as his alleged teaching, Jews can NOT be guilty of rejecting Jesus' teaching because the modern Gospel inaccurately reports those teachings and the history behind them. Jesus' true teachings were a close approximation of Essene teachings. This included:

a) Personal Sacrifice (not merely belief*)

b) Non violence

c) Anti-materialism

d) Strict adherence to certain traditional Jewish laws--such as circumcision & fasting on Yom Kippur.

* This reliance on faith alone as the source of salvation is particularly ironic because many Jews in ancient Judea were reserving their final opinions on Mr. Jesus (and his ministry) while all waited to see if he would indeed be resurrected after three days and more importantly, if the prophesized "Kingdom of God" would actually materialize at that same time. When this failed to occur, the same population began to be instructed that 'salvation was attained by faith alone'.

Jay:
Initially I did not intend to spend too much time on the molecular composition of anti-Semitism. I gave it one line. Then you commented: " . . . usual tactic of responding to criticisms of Israel by brandishing the critic as a racist."
While your follow up is correct, that Al Nakba did not reference any 'Jewish crimes against humanity', per-se, his statement (in sum and substance) was close enough for my comparison, which was a generalization. (BTW: I did not subject you or the other readers to the full version of my definition of Jew-haters, which would have been far longer.) My basic point was that by misdirecting attention towards Israel while on a different topic, added to the misapplied history he used, this did constitute textbook anti-Semitism (at least to my understanding). I explained why but my explanation was not intended to apply solely to Mr. Al Nakba.

The post signed by Ibrahim is lifted whole cloth from www.truthtellers.org/jewishguiltarticle.html.

This isn't the first time that crap has been transplanted here from 'Holy Man' Ted Pike's site.

He ought to just come on out of the closet and call it the Kill A Jew For Jesus site...

Oh come on Trollstein, I've seen threads where you've held off 10 attackers like an Aikido practicioner, fighting back with 1000-word midterm essays! Can't you afford me the same?!?!?! Haha, just kidding. That's cool, I made my point and I don't want to beat a dead horse.

What is this rigorous definition of Jew-haters?

Andy Rebeiro, said "Both India and the US realize that the true rival in the future will be China." This is a typical racist comment against Asian people(Chinese) by round eyed people. Who appointed the USA to rule the world? China is raising. The USA is falling(just look at the stock market) because you are greedy capitalists. The future is Asia(e.g. China). Our philosophy is better than your greedy capitalist society.

a typical racist comment against Asian people

Oh.
India is no longer part of Asia? The Sub-Continent is no longer attached to the Continent?

Somebody needs to redraw the map. And maybe these guys should be informed:
geography.about.com/library/maps/blrasia.htm

Does Lucy Lu write your posts for you? Your anti-American content seems very similar.
Or is she your twin sister, perhaps? Alter-Ego?

Jay:
Thanks brother.
I rarely have the luxury of ending a conversation on a happy note.

Absolutely "Wong". You are racist because you make fun of the way we speak, "Wong" for wrong. India is south Asian(or "sub"means'inferior to' as you say) and they are Cauc-Asian like the Iranians. Everybody knows when we say "Asia", it is Chinese(sometimes Japanese).

Wong, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that China's unprecedented prosperity has been due to capatalistic greed! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Chairman Mao's economic policies were nothing but total failure that resulted in the deaths of millions of piss-poor peasants! You know what's funny Wong? My university has made a concerted effort at breaking the monopoly white people have on the undergraduate demographics. This year alone, they increased the number of non-whites to 25% of the incoming class. Many of them are asians, including Chinese. And guess what, they are engaging in the most base of capatilistic practices: dressing like metrosexual, emasculated douchebags. Yes, they dress in nice clothes, cut their hair like the idiot untalented bands on MTv, spike their hair, etc. You see, capatilism appeals to humanity in all of us. Why do you think countries westernize so quickly? Because people love western culture.

And are you going to tell me you don't make fun of white people? Come on, you know you do. You can make Asian white people jokes here. We're all adults here.

LOL... What have you been smoking pal? China is just a repressed capitalist society... kinda where we are headed (you know...loss of rights, gun control, cameras on every corner watching us, etc...).

The statement made was quite valid... China is out to control steel, oil and America's T Bills... and they love a Big Mac! Is that raciest? I think not... sad or funny, depending upon your point of view...but not raciest. You on the other hand... lol

You are incorrect Trollstein. The U.S. King-Crane (1919)report stated: 90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non Jewish & did NOT want a Jewish state in Palestine.
Israeli Arab group Adalah proposed a new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state. Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their flag having a Jewish star in it. Would not most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it? Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their national anthem referring to the land, as the land of the Jews. Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against. Israeli-Arabs will want full equality in Israel. Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair. Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated. Discrimination against Arab-Israelis is not fair. As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true. Let us not be racists and stop discrimination at home(Israel). Support the multi-cultural constitution.

Epstein:
I am factually quite correct. If you wish to debate my conclusions, you will need more then a selection of bumper-stickers (which is all you have shown thus far).
Your sole citation re: "King-Crane" is misplaced, misleading and rhetorical. Firstly, the "Palestine" being referenced is the 45,000-sq. mile area which today includes Jordan. The land which is presently being disputed (in 2008) is 8,000-sq. miles (1/5th) and exclusive of Jordan. Given that geography, it is no longer momentous that 90% of pre WW1 "Palestine" consisted of non-Jews. That 90% has their own nation. Its called Jordan and Jews are not included. As per the Jordanian Citizenship Laws of 1967, all Muslims and Christians acquired when Jordan annexed its 4/5ths of Palestine were granted Jordanian citizenship--except that Jews were solely excluded. Now, if you are reasonable (maybe or maybe not) you will say OK, if the accurate split is 90% / 10% and Jordan equals 4/5ths versus Israel = 1/5th, that is still twice the fair amount of land for the Jews. (But I don't think you will go that far because I do not suspect that you are even trying to learn or be intrinsically fair). But lets be optimistic and say that such is your next point: Here is the other part of the equation: The Jewish National Homeland was not intended to simply be home to the Jewish residents of (then) Palestine. Minimally, it was designed to be home to all the Jews of the Middle East. The legal creation of the Jewish National Home after WW1 was done in conjunction to the liberation of all the Arab populations in the region from Turkish-Ottoman rule (Turks are not Arabs). The theory being that Jews who had been second-class citizens as Turkish subjects would surely become third-class citizens under Arab rule. The "work-around" was to provide for Jewish emancipation and independence but there was only one method for that to be possible. The Jews of Iraq and Yemen and Syria and elsewhere were to migrate to the newly established Jewish National Homeland. So the 90% / 10% ratio you reference fails under that analysis as well. Lastly, Israel is not 100% Jewish, while Jordan is 100% non-Jewish. There are a few hundred Jewish families scattered around the mid-east and a few hundred more remaining inside Syria but no significant numbers of Jews remain in Mid East nations. In fact, the most recent Iraqi constitution called for the "right-of-return" for all Iraqi refugees but specifically excludes Jews.
If you would like to know what could go wrong under a non-Jewish Israel, you need to look no further then across the border to Lebanon.
Lebanon's constitution was created as a compromise with Arab and Muslim leaders and called for ruling power to always be in the hands of Christians. Over the past century, this provision has been eroded and now, they remain on the verge of (another) civil war literally every day the sun rises.
Here is a clip from another web site. I do not agree with it entirely but I think its information is practical to this discussion:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For e xample, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses spare the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century. ~Posted July 18, 2008 by Dr. Peter Hammond
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
{end of quote}
Thus, it is not that important if Arabs and Christians living in Israel appreciate the Jewish star on their flags. For them, it could be a symbol of prosperity--if they would only permit it. With Jews being specifically excluded from these other countries, and not even permitted visas into the Saudi Kingdom (without some special reason) and taking their lives into their hands by visiting other Muslim nations such as Pakistan (e.g. Daniel Pearl) the non-Jews of Israel can survive and indeed thrive with full human rights (something they lack in most other Muslim run venues) knowing that Israel was created as a REFUGE for an historically persecuted population. Its that simple.

Trollstein, I have two comments to make on the clip you posted. Its off topic but I'm posting it just in case anyone is interested in such a discussion.

1.) I disagree with the statement with regards to China. The Uighur (spelling?) population has been waging a low-level resistance against the Chinese government. They are primarily Muslim and ethnically different from the ruling Han majority, being ethnically closer to the Turkemn. If the Chinese media wasn't so controlled, we might hear about more violence (conjecture obviously).

2.) With regards to France, how much of the recent violence was more due to poverty and feeling discriminated against due to their being Muslim AND African in origin? I mean, all these people leave their shitholes for a better shithole with running water that's not classified as a shanty-town and end up living in delapidated ghettos. That creates tension and a crazy, firebrand cleric can take advantage of that. Granted, I don't believe poverty is the reason for all of the world's ills because some of the biggest thieves are rich, old, white men (I mean, come on, poor people don't have the access to the resources a wall street banker or ruthless ceo does and therefore don't have the opportunity to steal on the scale as someone like Ken Lay).

Its almost as if the article is implying there is a driving force behend Islam that leads to violence and wiping the influences of anything Islamic. I don't necessarily buy that kind of interpretation.

Trollstein, you are so mistaken.
When WW-I ended, no one could reconcile the claims of Arabs, Zionists, British & French so, in 1919, Woodrow Wilson "dispatched the King-Crane Commission to the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire to ascertain the wishes of their inhabitants regarding the postwar settlement of their territories." [Britannica]
The King-Crane report stated:
90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non Jewish & did NOT want a Jewish state in Palestine;
If they are given Palestine, "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants."
The King-Crane Commission said that a Jewish state in Palestine would violate the Palestinian Arabs' right to self-determination. They recommended that Zionists respect the wishes of Palestine's inhabitants & find another place to plant the Jewish state.
The Zionists were furious! They didn’t want democracy; they didn’t give a damn about “the will of the people.” The Zionists wanted Palestine, no matter what they had to do to get it. So they simply “rewrote” the history of the conflict. The usual versions of Israel's history either don't mention The King-Crane Commission Report or they minimize its importance. Anyone who believes in Democracy must consider the King-Crane Commission's official report—which even now can be documented by any interested party —irrefutable proof that:
In 1919, even after 30 years of intensive Jewish emigration into Palestine (inspired by Theodore Herzl’s The Jewish State, published in 1898), 90% of Palestine’s inhabitants were non-Jewish and did not want a Jewish state in Palestine. The will of the people was clear
The Zionists knew they were acting against the will of the people.
The Zionists knowingly subverted Democracy.
The Government of the United States confirmed the legitimacy of the claim that Palestinians make today.

Some Quotes from the Commission's Report
"a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State."
"nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
"In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great 'ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting': 'The settlement of every question, whether of territory or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for their own exterior influence or mastery."
"If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done to Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principles just quoted, and of the peoples' rights, though it kept within the forms of the law."
"No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms."
"That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of injustice of the 'Zionist program.”
"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.''
"the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered."
Among other things, the indigenous Arab population—the people who actually lived in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.—had been promised control over their own countries at a price: IF they helped the Allies overthrow the Turkish Army that occupied their land.
They did.
Not only did the Zionists have no connection to Palestine for the last 2000 years, they didn't participate in the fight to take it back from the Ottoman Turks—World War I.
The Jewish claim on Palestine, when all the crap is removed, boils down to this: “We haven’t lived here for two thousand years but God gave us this land so you have a moral obligation to move out of your home and off the land your family has owned for hundreds of years and give it to us.

Jay:
I don't know how much you know about Muslim history or the religion itself. As you know, I did not author the article you are now debating and I mentioned that I was not totally in agreement with it. I have read the Qur'an door-to-door and can assure you of one thing: most Muslims do not fully understand it. They rely on their local clerics to answer day-to-day questions and guess what, many of the clerics themselves either do not understand it or, they insert meaning into it which they themselves know does not really exist. Thirdly, (very important) the scripture is self-contradicting on many levels. Add to that the fact that there are quite many disparate translations and interpretations and the bottom-line result is that the religion is championed by peaceful followers as well as the most violent jihadists. Each group or sect generally ignores the other--as if it does not exist or if it does exist, does not count for much anyway. As recently highlighted on CNN's special on Osama Bin Laden, there were several turning-points in his spiritual development. As a teenager, he was peaceful and quiet and after his best friend had confronted a bully, Bin Laden was reported to have complained that he would have preferred a peaceful solution. Later in life, he came under the tutelage of a radical Palestinian-Arab Cleric named Aziz, who convinced him that the love of God required that Muslims rise--up and not only respond to violence against them but essentially use pre-emptive tactics. He later split with this cleric because he was willing to fight against fellow Muslims, something that Aziz forbad. The next step in his transformation is when Sheikh Abdul Rhaman convinced him that although the Qur'an specifically prohibits harm against innocent civilians, that this rule could be overlooked if the civilians being killed were targeted in retaliation for harm directed against Muslim civilians. Thus ushered in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
What makes Islam somewhat unique and noteworthy from the other two so called monotheistic religions is that Jews do not proselytize and Christians are (supposed to be) pre-occupied with peace. Jesus himself was part of a totally non-violent sect, the priests of which could not even touch a knife. By contrast, the Islamic Prophet Mohammed was a warrior cleric and the symbol of Islam as displayed in many national flags is the sword. Islam itself means surrender to the will of God. Look at the names of the various Islamic movements: Fatah = conquest by virtue of Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah = army of God.
Getting back to the core of your questions: Most of the Muslims now living in France have immigrated within the past 25 years. Literally millions of Muslims have recently been welcomed with open arms in dozens of countries, most in the EU. France is not the only example. After speaking with a group from Stockholm, they commented that they can not walk the streets at night due to gangs, mainly Muslim émigrés. The population of Sweden was totally shocked and dismayed when the Muslim population they invited refused to adopt any Swedish practices or traditions. They (mostly) did not learn Swedish, adopt any Swedish customs, do not wear local clothing, eat local cuisine and pro-actively keep to themselves. The question was: "Why did they want to come here? We thought they liked us!" The answer is that assimilation is not their goal. Their goal is to assimilate the other population and being a minority percentage is only a temporal impediment. While their relative population is growing due to averages of 5 or more children per (young) couple, they use intimidation tactics and pitch regular fits--due to their endless claims of being persecuted.
When Chirac of France hosted a peace meeting with Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak, U.S. Sec. of State M. Allbright and Yasser Arafat, during a moment alone with Barak, Chriac told him the following:
"We had our own encounters with terrorism. We had to give into their demands. Now we have no more terrorism. Why don't you just give them what they want?"
Barak answered: "Yes, but they did not demand that you give up Paris. The Palestinians are demanding we give up Jerusalem. To us this is like Paris is to you."
PS> Now the French have all but lost Paris and they also have terrorism back again. This was the ultimate reason why they elected a right-wing P.M. Germany, another traditional Muslim sympathizing Euro nation did essentially the same with its most recent selection of P.M. (Angela Merkel). In both cases the quantum shifting in the body-politic was due to grievances directed against immigrants who the locals feel have abused their privileges and essentially, busted their comps. Many of these immigrants are Muslims.

King-Crane:
Obviously, there were a variety of different and opposing viewpoints on the creation of a Jewish National Homeland anywhere. You mention one such report. I again direct your attention to the fact that the 90% number you seem to be centered on is irrelevant--for reasons previously mentioned. Of course the local (non-Jewish) inhabitants of Palestine were opposed to the formation of a Jewish Nation. At the time, many Jews (worldwide) shared this opinion for a variety of reasons--including religious prohibitions. The "King-Crane" report is of "minimal importance". Here is why:
a) It was not legally binding one anyone. It certainly was not legally binding on the title-holders of Palestine, namely the Turkish.
b) What was legally binding was a variety of international treaties and world tribunal documents. This included the Treaties of Versailles and San Remo, as executed by the Turkish-Ottomans as a condition to the end of WW1. It included the Charter of the League of Nations which ratified the British Lord Balfoure Resolution on the same subject. While the USA was not a member of the League of Nations, the US Congress passed a resolution supporting the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine and guess who? Woodrow Wilson signed it into law a few years after the King-Crane report. If you would like a scholarly exploration of the legal justification for a Jewish National Homeland, please refer to: http://english.katif.net/index.php?id=1824&sub=2 I do NOT agree with all the authors claims, especially his claim that Israel was supposed to include ALL of pre-WW1 "Palestine". But since we all know that the Hebrews ultimately got less then 1/5th of that turf, his bold claim in that regard is somewhat moot.
You wrote:
"If they are given Palestine, "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants."
The exact wording of the above statement is SO IMPORTANT to the core of this discussion. Since you posted it, please now try not to disregard it.
"If they are given Palestine . . . " This refers to the ENTIRETY of 45,000-sq miles of Palestine (as it existed at the time of the report). By contrast, the Balfore Resolution and subsequent ratifications of same refer to "A Jewish National Homeland IN Palestine". I repeat: "IN Palestine." So the compromise has been made and the international law had been codified with this compromise included.
You wrote:
"In 1919, even after 30 years of intensive Jewish emigration into Palestine . . . " The foregoing is completely inaccurate. The Travel Guide to Palestine and Syria written by Karl Baedeker in 1907 reported that Jews were legally barred from moving into or buying land in Palestine. This point, like most points on this topic require further explanation. Jews had been legally barred from moving into Palestine for about 1,750 out of the previous 1,900 years and all of the previous 400 years under Turkish rule. This of course created an impediment for them and was one of the many reasons why certain Jews were objectionable to the Zionist goals. They simply did not want to start any trouble. However, in spite of the oppressive Turkish rules against Jewish immigration into Palestine, some Jews managed their way in, through a variety of tactics, mainly by bribing local officials. Thus, when the Balfoure Declaration was codified into world law, part of its aim was to right this historical wrong and only then was the legal ban on Jewish immigration into Palestine officially lifted.
You have really not addressed any of my statements directly and so this is sort of like a softball game where you continue to be the batter-up and I am stuck being the pitcher. But I am used to that in dealing with opponents of Israel. They are typically obsessed with their own gravity-fields and don't particularly care that their arguments are revealed as weak (or flat-out erroneous). To them, this is and will always be a discussion about Jewish crimes.
"The will of the people was clear"
This is possibly the most inane statement you have made. What "will of what people"? They had no democracy to protect. Palestine at the time had been controlled globally by the Turkish sultans and locally by a variety of wealthy war-lords--who were in direct control of their populations, many of whom were tenant farmers or indentured servants and did whatever their masters wanted. The "Grand-Mufti" of Jerusalem (al Husseini) was just such a person--who was part of a well established clan and held vast tracts of land. Of course these Arab war-lords were opposed to a Jewish controlled nation or any democracy for that matter. Why would anyone expect otherwise? But certain of the Grand Mufti's speeches are very revealing on this topic. Though he tried, he could NOT convince his counterpart potentates and war-lords in the region to oppose a Jewish Nation centered around Jerusalem. So he concocted a worst-case scenario that became his canned speech. Namely, he would warn the regional Arabs that "The Jews would not be happy with just Palestine but would later expand to take over all of the Arabian peninsula". Once again, the exact wording is critical. " . . just Palestine . . " He was (unwittingly) acknowledging that Palestine was not such an unreasonable demand (even all 45,000-sq miles). But his warning re then entirety of Arabia got the attention of the other kings and war-lords, and also got the attention of the Muslim religious authorities. It was this treat which supported the Muslim Brotherhood's goals (in Egypt) to violently oppose any Jewish nation of any size.
I will basically wrap it up here because the rest of your posing continues to obsess on this non legally binding King-Crane Commission report which I have already dispensed with on general principle as well as its specifics. In closing: The Jewish Claim to establish independence in 1/5th of historical Palestine is NOT based solely on Biblical rights. It is based on International law as well as equity and fairness. In fact, if you confer with Qur'an 17:104, one translation states: "And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel, dwell securely in the Promised Land . . . ". The Hebrew scriptures (by contrast) prohibit the Jews return to the Promised Land until the "Messiah" returns (which has not yet occurred according to Jewish tradition). This is the prime reason why, in 1865, when the chief rabbi of the Balkans (Yuhuda Alkali) published a rabbinical document calling for the reestablishment of the Jewish nation in Palestine, it was roundly rejected by the other rabbinical leaders of the world. Alkali was no "Zionist" and Hertzl was one Jewish guy with a grand plan--that was not successful. Israel was by contrast the result of a variety of world treaty documents and binding laws. The original League of Nations language stated that nothing shall be done to prejudice the rights of non-Jews living . . . ". This refers to those already living there as of the date of the mandate. It does not afford the same protection to non-Jews who emigrated after the document was codified, which amounts to hundreds of thousands of Arabs. Why? Because they were never intended to emigrate. The Jews were the intended immigrants. Please get your facts strait. Thank you.

Here is a link to another short explanation re: legal rights vis-a-vis Israel: http://www.jewishdesmoines.org/page.aspx?id=135399

My position is slightly different. When Jordan acquired 4/5ths of Palestine, the remaining 1/5th was therefore legally provisioned as the Jewish National Homeland (as previously mandated). This included the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, Israel would rather prefer NOT to own these tracts of land because doing so would require that they recognize (local) Arab rights of citizenship in Israel. So, contrary to oft repeated claims, Israel would be overjoyed if the Arabs would declare their own nation and move on with building a life and future for themselves.