Kerry I'm glad you brought up this subject; it's a wonderful day to see you recognizing Mr. Gore for all his work. I am so happy to see that he has won this award along with the UN panel. It's a shame that you do not feel the same way as many others (including myself) do, but I offer congratulations to Mr. Gore because the award is very well deserved (you claim it’s only because of “a movie” but that just shows how little you actually recognize). It's a pleasure to see you squirm this early in the morning Kerry, thank you for the opportunity. :)

Hi Kerry,

I'm not sure what your concern is here is it that he got the peace prize or that he got a prize at all? If it's specifically the peace prize you object to perhaps you're right and he should have got one for a science althought they usually reserve this for hardcore scientific research rather than publicising science.

If it's that he got a prize at all it's something you've got to face. Most of the educated western world believes that global warming is a problem. The vast majority of scientists who specialise in this field say so and the vast majority of people who have looked on at their work believe the supporting evidence. The American right is way out of step on this one I cannot fathom why conservative Americans think this other than those being backed by the auto and petro industries. One side or the other will be proved right and most of us think the American right will be proved wrong.

Oh and I agree with you about not giving him the money I'm sure you and I would both be happier if it went straight to Greenpeace ;-)

I'm sure once we stop all those nasty greenhouse gas emmissions and Mr. I-invented-the-internet stops driving his SUVs and flying in private jets, that we will have peace in the MiddleEast. Really, who couldn't make that connection?

(you claim it’s only because of “a movie” but that just shows how little you actually recognize).

Please, enlighten us on what Mr. Gore has done to bring peace to the world?

Well, it was pretty clear when Arafat won that the Nobel committee was pretty easily fooled. And when Carter won, it was pretty clear that it wasn't about any form of "greatness," either.

Now, however, they really have to admit this prize hasn't a thing in the world to do with "peace."

Gore isn't anywhere near the level of a Nobel laureate in any other category, so if they are going to express their mindless lust for him, it has to be through the peace prize.

However, they merely make the prize irrelevant by giving it to an irrelevancy like Gore.

And don't tell me Gore did anything more than make a movie. He made a movie of HIMSELF giving a LECTURE. That's not even worthy of a favorites vote on youtube. Everything else he's done has been to believe something and surround himself with people who will tell him about it. So what?

Oh, I forgot. He also threw a concert no one cared about or went to. Yippee.

Somebody tell Carrot Top to get ready. His turn could come next year.

Please, enlighten us on what Mr. Gore has done to bring peace to the world?

Within the threat of climate change is the chance that with changes to world and its resources, governments and political groups will have to deal with changes to the way they exist. Within those changes, there are chances of fighting for resources or land. Al Gore has a Pre-emptive outlook on these issues and can understand risks that global warming can bring.

He is not just receiving this award based on his film, it's from almost a lifetime of work dedicated to making all of us aware of a future problem.

Everyone who is upset about this award is making my day! It's laughable, too bad you have no control over it :(

to further my point on why Mr. Gore recieved the Nobel "Peace Prize" is stated in part of the official press release:

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html

They were able to write A BIT more eloquently than I had hehe.

And this:

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html

a BIT more then just "a film"

Kerry,

Since its been obvious from day one that you know very little about global warming, it is not surprising to me that you don't understand how global warming can relate to global peace. But perhaps if the 50% of Americans (150 million) that live within a few miles of the coast, were forced to move in land over a 20-30 year period, hopefully you can imagine how that would piss alot of people in-land. Now imagine the same thing happening across the planet. It could be the makings of the biggest humanitarian/world war, this world has ever seen.

Keep the deep thinking to folks like Al Gore. He may not be 100% right, but even if he's 10% right, we've got serious problems, far above the order of Katrina coming.

Al Gore has merely built his own personal "Sky-is-falling" religious cult. Global warming has NOTHING to do with peace. It has NO relationship to ending ANY conflict in the world, nor does Gore claim to make any attempt to do so.

Look at ALL the other recipients. These are people who changed nations, brought warring factions together, founded actual centers with the word "peace" in their titles, and on and on.

Gore has DONE not a THING. He has not even brought warring factions together on this issue! To the contrary, he has DIVIDED this nation, by refusing to accept defeat and by ginning up controversy surrounding his own failure to be elected president--a division that remains to this day between the "red" and the "blue." In fact, he had the perfect opportunity to BRING unity, by dropping his lawyers and taking his defeat like a man and telling his rabid, psychotic followers to cowboy up and get behind the new administration, instead of running screaming to psychiatrists that they were suffering from post-election depression.

Gore is not about peace. He's about Gore.

And the Nobel Prize Committee is all about embarrassing the United States every chance it gets.

This time, however, the Committee has embarrassed itself by throwing its award away on something having nothing to do with peace. And it has embarrassed the actual peace movement, by demonstrating that it has no respect for anyone in it.

From now on, the "Nobel Peace Prize" has very little meaning.

Kerry,

Keep breathing in your delusions. And while you're living in your fantasy world, people like Gore will continue to move the world forward. That is after all what conservatives hate about progressives, they force change on society.

ahmanrah,

Name one thing Al Gore has actually caused to happen.

I'd still like to know what Global warming (what I like to call natural climate shift) has to do with world peace... And how would you award someone who has been completely hypocritical in regards to his preachings? Or do we not care what type of example they set - do as I say not as I do?

Tek-Support,

If you can't see what sea-level rise, and climate change would do to world stability if they came true, you are dumber than a brick.

If you can't see what leaving terrorism (and Radical Islam) running free and not keeping it in check, or not ridding the world of Saddam would do, and has done, to world stability, then I could same the same for you my dear :-)

And you still didn't answer why Mr. I-invented-the-internet gets to play by different rules than the rest of us when it comes to helping the environment...

If you can't see what leaving terrorism (and Radical Islam) running free and not keeping it in check, or not ridding the world of Saddam would do, and has done, to world stability, then I could same the same for you my dear :-)

What does this have to do with Gore's win of the peace prize, or global warming. Were you expecting Bush to be recognized? Give me a break.

Tell me exactly what the world has gotten by eliminating Saddam? I'll tell you. A fucking mess. Of course that wasn't the world's fault, it was ours.

I can also tell you this. You will never get rid of Radical Islam with the barrel of a gun. Only when you get rid of those things that make radical ideologies appealing to the masses, will you ever win this war. And you have to start with creating a peace in Israel/Palestine that is equatable for both sides. A happy Palestinian, and a happy Lebanese are a lot more difficult for the Mullahs of Iran to control than when they are pissed off, and living in squalid refugee camps.

In fact the number one recruiting tool of every fucking Muslim radical is Israel/Palestinian problem. How far do you think Osama Bin Laden would have gotten if we solved the Palestinian problem 10-20 years ago, and all the Palestinians had jobs, homes, and live freely like every other person on this Earth. I'll tell you what he would have had, ziltch! Because his number one poster boy would no longer exist!

The strategy of most armies in the world, is to cut their enemies off at the knees. What have we done by not forcing a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problem, and then starting the war in Iraq? Instead of cutting our enemies off at the knees, we gave them a fucking race car.

And I get accused of living in a fantasy world? Wow, you really do not understand radical Muslims do you? Do you understand that they want Western civilization gone? That their "God" is telling them to kill us all? Do you think someone who thinks like that will respond to diplomacy?

"If 'violence never solved anything,' cops wouldn't have guns and slaves may never have been freed." (I don't have the author of that quote at hand, sorry)

Get out of your lets all make love not war fantasy. These people hate you and want you dead, wouldn't you rather kill them first?

"If you can't see what sea-level rise, and climate change would do to world stability if they came true, you are dumber than a brick."

This doesn't tell me what Global Warming theories have to do with world peace. I obviously do not know so why don't you tell me. (I don't know too many bricks that can type - if you do, I suggest you tell someone, you might make a great deal of money).

You might want to think about getting Dish or Cable. Check out the Disocvery channel once in a while and you will see that the Earth has been going through continuous climate changes since it's beginning. We're very arrogant to think that conditions here will always be able to sustain life, let alone human life on this planet. What are you going to do when the sun starts to expand and swallows Mercury and Venus? That's just the way it is and you gotta deal with it ;-)

You act as if the Muslim behavior is political. I assure you, it's more than that. Religious zealots are more dangerous than any politician on the face of this planet. These poeple believe that a higher power is telling the to destroy the infidels of Western Civilization. Why? Simply because our way of life is wrong according to their teachings. Are the almighty leftists going to defend people that punish homosexuaility with death? Who punish WOMEN for BEING raped? You're as sick as they are if you stand back and do nothing.

If I see my neighbor abusing their child, I'm calling the cops. If I see a nation abusing their people, I'm calling the Marines. I am all about keeping to yourself and minding your own business, but when you're hurting the defenseless innocent, it becomes my business. You claim to love your fellow man and want peace, but you'd rather sit around with your thumb up your ass so you don't look politically partisan.

And you still didn't answer why Mr. I-invented-the-internet gets to play by different rules than the rest of us when it comes to helping the environment...

Tek,

I love how conservatives keep bringing up Gore's house and his cars. But your attempted smear doesn't work. If Gore's ability to bring the Global warming problem to the public consciousness, and force a change in our attitudes that saves millions of lives by staving off a catastrophe that the likes of you pooh pooh, he will have done more for the environment, and the human race than you will have done in a thousand life times.

Ironically Gore's greatest achievement will be one unfortunately that neither he or anyone else can measure, because its hard to quantify the scale of a disaster that was averted. So I am sure Gore will prove an endless source of fodder for the ignorant naysayers of this world. Fortunately there are a few of us who don't need a disaster to happen before we get off our ass and do something.

You act as if the Muslim behavior is political.

Tek-Support,

Honestly I suspect the supreme ruler of Iran is more a cool, calculating politician than he is a radical religious nut. And he's been playing the US for years, using the instrument of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to recruit millions of naive radicalized Muslims to do his bidding. And he'll keep playing you like a fine instrument, as long as you let him.

I assure you, it's more than that. Religious zealots are more dangerous than any politician on the face of this planet.

Agreed, but what you assume and I don't, are that all religious zealots these days are Muslim.

You might want to think about getting Dish or Cable. Check out the Disocvery channel once in a while and you will see that the Earth has been going through continuous climate changes since it's beginning. We're very arrogant to think that conditions here will always be able to sustain life, let alone human life on this planet. What are you going to do when the sun starts to expand and swallows Mercury and Venus? That's just the way it is and you gotta deal with it ;-)

Funny you should mention all this, because the reason you know any of it is because a scientist told you. Why is it you believe the scientist that tells you the Sun is going to swallow us one day, but you don't believe the one that tells you we are the primary cause of the CO2 increase that occurred in the last 150 years.

And why is it that believe scientists when they say the Earth's climate has changed naturally in the past, but the minute they start saying we are the cause this time, they are all of a sudden full of shit? Is it because you all of a sudden have to do something...aka make a sacrifice in your lifestyle that you don't want to. This is what it really comes down to. You have to make a change, and you don't want to believe you have to....

It comes down to, no matter if we're helping it along slightly or not, it's going to happen anyway. I think there's too much hype over Global Warming, and you'll find just as many scientists who say the whole theory is bunk - may be a little harder to find them though, as they are usually the ones who are denied Federal Funding for their research ;-)

And please, again, tell me why it is acceptable for Al Gore to drive an SUV and fly a private jet, among other things.

What are your feelings on Ethanol fuel?

It comes down to, no matter if we're helping it along slightly or not, it's going to happen anyway.

Who says? The only information you've ever come across on global climate change comes from the very people you are saying are full of shit.

you'll find just as many scientists who say the whole theory is bunk - may be a little harder to find them though

Why are they hiding in their mother's basement? I love baseless statements like this. Every major scientific association on Earth, which represents hundreds of thousands of scientists have come on the side you say is full of crap. And yet you still dream up this idea that there is an equal number of poor hapless scientists that are too poor to publish. Particularly when there are oil companies, and right wing religious groups waiting in the wings with fist fulls of cash, and easily gullible believes, just waiting to publish the message that "we aren't responsible, we can't do anything anyway, its all in gods hands, so its business as usual bullshit. Your excuse for this sorry little group of scientists just doesn't hold water.

And please, again, tell me why it is acceptable for Al Gore to drive an SUV and fly a private jet, among other things.

If I look at strictly on the basis of how much he pollutes versus how much pollution he prevents from entering the atmosphere, he is doing far more than his share to reduce carbon emissions. So what was your point.

What are your feelings on Ethanol fuel?

I think its the poster boy fuel of choice for politicians who aren't really concerned about solving the problem. Ethanol is less efficient than fossil fuels, takes up valuable space that is better used for growing food people can eat, and is polluting besides. If Bush really wanted to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels he create a mandate that requires everyone install solar panels on their houses in 10 years. He could subsidize the cost dramatically with such huge economies of scale, and before we know it, we'd be adding 100s of millions (if not billions) megawatts of electricity to the nations power grid. Its power our soldiers don't have to die over, its power that doesn't pollute our air, its power that doesn't force us to bribe and pay off middle east dictators, its an endless power source that isn't going to run out in 20, 30, or even 100 years, and its power that no foreign power can hold over us as a political weapon. Why on God's green Earth we are continuing to pay $7 a gallon for Middle East Crude (when you factor in the costs of war), when we could get a good chunk of that energy essentially free of charge straight from the sun, is beyond my comprehension.

And if Bush was serious about reducing our dependents on foreign oil, he'd be spending 10's of billions of dollars on alternative energy research. If politicians had the political will to pull off an Apollo-like fast track program we could solve our problems in 10-20 years, and then we could turn around and sell what we learned to the rest of the world, and probably recoup every cent we ever spent, while also making the world dependent on our technology.

Have to elect politicians with vision though, not those who are beholden to "legacy" energy company lobbyists and campaign payoffs.

"If I look at strictly on the basis of how much he pollutes versus how much pollution he prevents from entering the atmosphere, he is doing far more than his share to reduce carbon emissions. So what was your point."

Wow, you people are so willing to fall under a dictatorship. This is proof - you would be willing to allow a "do as I say, not as I do" leader, if it's for the Greater Good. Lemmings...

So it's OK for a cop to beat his wife, because he puts away way more wife beaters than wives he abuses?

If Bush was serious about reducing the depandancies on foreign oil, he'd be drilling the shit out of Anwar right now and say screw you tree-huggers. The guy just doesn't have any balls.

"So it's OK for a cop to beat his wife, because he puts away way more wife beaters than wives he abuses?"

Depends. Does she recycle? (See "Serial Mom" for the explanation.)

Notice how willing ahmanrah is to have the government "mandate" this, that, and the other thing?

And our soldiers aren't dying because the government hasn't forced us to put in solar panels. Our soldiers are giving their lives to defend freedom because the insane Islamofascist enemy doesn't think enough Americans have been beheaded yet.

As to Palestine, do you seriously believe that the crazed theocrats of the Middle East would be happy with two little states, Palestine and Israel? I don't. I KNOW to the depths of my being that the goal of the PLO and all its evil progeny is to drive Israel into the SEA.

You don't give land to people like that.

If Bush was serious about reducing the depandancies on foreign oil, he'd be drilling the shit out of Anwar right now and say screw you tree-huggers. The guy just doesn't have any balls.

LOL! ANWR is going to solve all our problems. I love you idiots who have been spoon fed bullshit. At best estimates ANWR contains enough oil to meet our needs for a couple of years, what you going to do after that?

Notice how willing ahmanrah is to have the government "mandate" this, that, and the other thing?

Kerry,

Yah I would prefer to mandate people conserve energy and invest in renewable "FREE" energy, rather than Bush basically mandating by decree that we spend billions to fight stupid wars...which despite your cluelessness really are about maintaining a cheap supply of oil (even though solar power is even cheaper....duhh!). If Bush was really over there to bring freedom, yada yada, he'd be fighting wars in the dozens of other countries that have dictatorships. Like Africa, but see, we don't have any real national security interest (aka oil) in Sudan, Rwanda, or even Somalia (full of terrorists). Get a clue.

As to Palestine, do you seriously believe that the crazed theocrats of the Middle East would be happy with two little states, Palestine and Israel? I don't. I KNOW to the depths of my being that the goal of the PLO and all its evil progeny is to drive Israel into the SEA.

Do you really thing the average Palestinian living in a squad refugee camp, with no job, no house, no freedom movement and no hope for a prosperous future, really cares what the technocrats think or want? Given a choice I think they'd want to live a normal life like the rest of us, they just need to be given a chance. They will force change, but someone has to have to balls to give them the opportunity...

Kerry,

And to add to that, the "crazed theocrats" aren't happy with current situation either, so what do we have to lose by creating a two state solution? One thing I know is that under the latter they will lose alot of their foot soldiers, because something tells me if a person has a chance at a prosperous and peaceful future, they are less likely to turn into a suicide bomber for Hamas.

Kerry,

And yet another thought, since when were you concerned about making Muslim theocrats happy? I can imagine Iran's mullah's wouldn't be happy with a two state solution, because they might just lose the free extremist recruitment tool we've been giving them for the last 40 years.

"Like Africa, but see, we don't have any real national security interest (aka oil) in Sudan, Rwanda, or even Somalia (full of terrorists). Get a clue."

Ask your boy Clinton why we aren't in Rwanda or Somalia--or the Sudan, for that matter. He's the one who didn't intervene in any of that.

"Do you really thin[k] the average Palestinian living in a squa[li]d refugee camp, with no job, no house, no freedom [of] movement and no hope for a prosperous future, really cares what the technocrats think or want?"

I didn't say anything about "technocrats," and I don't know what you mean by that.

I think the "average" Palestinian wants to obliterate the Jewish state and kill everyone in it. Like they are taught to by their textbooks, their media, their parents, their clerics, and their leaders.

"They will force change, but someone has to have to balls to give them the opportunity..."

The Israelis already tried that. For their trouble, they were attacked by 6 nations, bombed, totured, made war upon, and their school buses, day care centers, schools, and hospitals were blown up.

If their Muslim brethren love them so much, why don't they take them in? Is there not enough room in the Middle East for the "Palestinians" to live?

I think the "average" Palestinian wants to obliterate the Jewish state and kill everyone in it. Like they are taught to by their textbooks, their media, their parents, their clerics, and their leaders.

Then why didn't they all strap on dynamite a long time ago, and head in mass like a bunch of mindless zombies toward Israel's borders. I know why, because what you believe isn't true. They have hopes, and dreams for a real life just like any other human being, but it makes it easy on your mind to think they are all a bunch of blood thirsty killers...even the kids.

If their Muslim brethren love them so much, why don't they take them in? Is there not enough room in the Middle East for the "Palestinians" to live?

For the same reason American's shouldn't have vacate their homes to move to Canada just because some invading culture (and its allies) want them to.

"For the same reason American's shouldn't have vacate their homes to move to Canada just because some invading culture (and its allies) want them to."

You're having that analogy problem again. Just for me, flesh this out a little. In your comparison, who are the Jews, who are the Arabs, and who is the "invading culture?"

To get back to the point, I believe this is the first time the Nobel Committee has given an award to someone who has not actually ACCOMPLISHED anything. Even Arafat APPEARED to have taken steps toward peace at the time (sorry it didn't pan out, but I guess we don't get the prize back.)

Gore is going to end up the Rachel Carson of the 21st century--discredited, disproven, and dead.

Let's hope he does less damage in the meantime.

You're having that analogy problem again. Just for me, flesh this out a little. In your comparison, who are the Jews, who are the Arabs, and who is the "invading culture?"

Well since the Jewish population of Palestine went from 11% percent of the population to 50% in less than a 100 years, and have gone from occupying very little of the land to forceably taking 70% (and counting), I'd say its fairly obvious.

Kerry,

And if you want a perfect analogy, particularly one you feel passionate about. What Israel has done, would be equivalent to truly unchecked immigration of Latinos into the United States, and then that same Latino population telling you if you don't like the way things are you should move to Canada.

I don't think you'd particularly care for that, in fact I know you wouldn't. But instead of fighting like you would, you expect the Palestinians to move to Canada, and at the same time wonder why after 40 years of struggling, they are still acting like you would against a flood of immigrants to America.

Oh and Kerry, lets see if you can stop your self from diverting the discussion, or bailing out on some cheesy technicality. Unfortunately I know you will, because to do otherwise you would have to rationalize why you expect the Palestinians not to resist the occupation of their homeland, when you know you and everyone else on Earth would resist the occupation of theirs.

And don't give me any bullshit about the bible, international law, the UN, or some other attempt to legitimize what has happened in Palestine. You know damn well if the UN legitimized the Latinization of the US you wouldn't recognize it, and so there is no reason to expect the Palestinians recognize any laws of ownership but their own.

"Well since the Jewish population of Palestine went from 11% percent of the population to 50% in less than a 100 years, and have gone from occupying very little of the land to forceably taking 70% (and counting), I'd say its fairly obvious."

No, actually, it's not at all. This is what you said:

"For the same reason American's shouldn't have vacate their homes to move to Canada just because some invading culture (and its allies) want them to."

Just fill this in:

In the Middle East, A is like America, B is like Canada, and C is the invading culture.

Who are A, B, and C?

"there is no reason to expect the Palestinians recognize any laws of ownership but their own."

But they never owned anything in the first place.

"Oh and Kerry, lets see if you can stop your self from diverting the discussion..."

You mean the discussion about "Winston Smith, Phone Home: "Global Warming" is Now 'Peace'"? I think you're the one who sailed the boat on that one.

But they never owned anything in the first place.

Pure and utter bullshit! Completely and totally bigoted, racist, and everything unmentionable I'd like to say at the moment. You show your true colors once more.

And you call Ahmadinejad an extremist. You two would be like bosom bodies if you didn't follow two different religions...actually I don't know that it can be said either of your are true followers, because civilized people don't think like the two of you.

Kerry,

In fact I know someone who thought just like you. He didn't like GAYS, or other groups he thought were INFERIOR. And he didn't respect either their human rights or PROPERTY RIGHTS. In fact he kind of liked putting these individuals in CAMPS, kind of like where the PALESTINIANS are now. His name was HITLER.

Based on what you've written now and in the last,you'd be lying if you said your views weren't hauntingly familiar to his own.

Guess I should award you your SS merit badge, and start calling you Lil' Miss Hitler. Fortunately the one thing you lack that Hitler didn't is the power sway normal society toward your views.

ahmanrah,

when did the "palestinians" own anything?

The Hitler card? Really? Is that the best you can do? Another one of your false analogies that crumbles to dust in the light of day.

Let's just unpack it, shall we?

"In fact I know someone who thought just like you. He didn't like GAYS...."

Mistake number one: I love people trapped in homosexuality and pray for them to come to Christ, like Charlene Chothran and Michale Glatze. If I didn't love them (because my beloved Jesus loves them), I wouldn't care one way or the other whether they went to Hell. Christianity is the only world religion that contains an affirmative duty to "DO unto others." All others have the same notion, but in a negative direction (i.e., "DON'T DO that which you would not want done to you.") Only the faith of the Christian directs him to care for those who are otherwise of no consequence to him personally.

"or other groups he thought were INFERIOR..."

Mistake number two: I don't believe anyone is "inferior" to anyone else. Every person created by God is AS GOOD AS AND NO BETTER THAN everyone else. We have diverse gifts, talents, and abilities He gave us to use to His glory. And it is not our business to second guess that. That--which you, ironically, don't understand--is why I oppose all forms of abortion, but especially those based on the assumption that the unborn child in any given case is less worthy of life because of some perceived defect.

"And he didn't respect either their human rights or PROPERTY RIGHTS."

Mistake number three: I respect all human rights. AND property rights. See my forthcoming post on Ellen to see just how intensely I respect those rights.

"In fact he kind of liked putting these individuals in CAMPS, kind of like where the PALESTINIANS are now."

They are in CAMPS because they left the HOMES in which they peaceably lived when Israel became a state to run off beyond the borders and wait for their pals in the rest of the Arab world to crush the infidel Jews. Didn't happen.

By the way, it's worth noting that the loyalties of Jews at the time of World War II was such that even those working feverishly for the establishment of a Jewish state--like Menachem Begin--were willing to make it a secondary consideration to the defeat of Hitler and joined the British army in droves. Meanwhile, the alleged leader of the "Palestinians," Huseini, was in Germany, working for your pal, Hitler. And by the end of the war, Huseini and Himmler were still in talks to create an Islamic army in Germany to fight for....who?

Oh, yeah. HITLER.

You can demonize me all you like, but it doesn't make your position any stronger; it just eats away at what's left of your character.

when did the "palestinians" own anything?

Your kidding me right? I guess the fact that they had thousands of farms, and houses they had occupied for hundreds of years doesn't amount to ownership in your eyes. What do you need some version of the western deed and title? Sorry Miss Hitler, but that isn't how the entire world determined landownership rights particularly in the past. And just because they didn't follow the rules you recognize, doesn't mean you have the right to take their land.

Kerry,

And if you respect all property rights, you are going to have to explain to me what justified Israel kicking Palestinians (particularly those who hadn't laid a finger on anyone) out of their homes, and then occupying them themselves. This isn't respecting property rights, and by extension of your unconditional support for their actions, you aren't showing respect for property rights either.

Once again, your history is wrong. The Israeli Jews never "threw" anyone out, except the Brits to convince them to grant independent statehood.

Until 1916, the area that eventually became Israel (plus modern-day Jordan) belonged to the Ottoman Empire. When it collapsed, that land ("Palestine") was mandated to the British Empire, making it the property of said empire. At the time, there had been no "nation" there since ancient Israel of 2000 years ago. It was, in fact, a malaria-infested swamp, which Jews had been immigrating to and trying to clean up since the 1880s.

As the incoming Jews began to salvage the mess, neighboring Arabs came in as well, attracted by the possibility of jobs and better conditions than those of their homelands.

In 1923, the British (who OWNED the lands) divided "Palestine" into two districts, the trans-Jordan (75% of the land) and the Jewish homeland (what was left.) Not content with the 75%, the Palestinian Arabs attacked the Palestinian Jews, attempting to drive them out. When the British did nothing to stop them, the Jews formed their own defense, the Hagana (which would become the Israeli Defense Force). The Hagana and the Irgun (the Jewish underground) fought both the Arabs trying to kill them and the British standing by.

In 1947, Britian (still, remember, the RIGHTFUL OWNERS of the land) dumped the whole mess on the newly-minted United Nations, which offered to split the current Jewish partition into two pieces--a Jewish and yet another Arab homeland. The Jews, despite being given the very very short end of the very sharp stick, accepted the deal. The Arabs had other ideas.

The day after the declaration of Israel as a state, seven Arab nations invaded the new nation, while the Arabs in the territories left on the promise of their brothers that, after the Jews were driven into the sea, they would be given all their possessions and property.

The point being, the land was owned by the Turks, the British, jointly the Arabs and the Jews, and the Israelis. The Arab partition at the end of the War for Israeli Independence went to Egypt and Jordan, and Israel remained very nearly the same size as the 1947 version (the tiny sliver carved next to the TWO Arab sections--which, remember, became Jordanian after the war).

There was no time at which "Palestinians" owned anything in what is now Israel.

And I will say it again. Prior to the 1880s, when Jews began to migrate into "Palestine" to make it habitable, NOBODY ELSE LIVED THERE. It was a SWAMP.

And I will say it again. Prior to the 1880s, when Jews began to migrate into "Palestine" to make it habitable, NOBODY ELSE LIVED THERE. It was a SWAMP.

Kerry,

Then I guess the attack on the Jewish community of Safed, and the conquest of Jerusalem in 1834 by LOCAL ARABS protesting the rule, and forced conscription by Egyptian ruler Mohammded Ali never happened. Cities the last time I checked can't be conquered by non-existent locals, rebelling against a ruler who's trying draft non-existent local Arabs into his army.

And here's another interesting quote, from this same "Pro-Israeli" site that I found kind of interesting.

Very bad was the fate of Safed, which had the largest Hebrew community in the land. All other communities in the land, including the one in Jerusalem, were its subordinates. (There were about 2,000 Jews then in Safed.)

From all the nearby towns and villages Arabs and Bedouins came to the city drunk from revolt and began delivering havoc on the Jews.

How can Arabs that don't exist, come from NEARBY towns and villages, to destroy the largest Jewish community in the land, plus conquer Jerusalem while they are at it.

In fact it doesn't say it here but Mohammed Ali ended up coming into Palestine with 12,000 men, and ended up having to bribe the largest contingent of rebels the Abu Gosh Clan. For a land where nobody lived, these must of been some pretty touch illusions to stop Mohammed and his army from running right over them....not to mention being humiliated into bargaining with them.

Here is the site that describes the Safed incident, which of course couldn't have ever happen, because non-existent Arabs, can conquer towns, or entire cities.

http://www.israel-palestina.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=428

And non-existent Arabs would have no cause for rebellion because the Arab ruler of Palestine at the time, would never have been stupid enough to send his soldiers to draft people in a land that nobody inhabited.

"http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Arabs_in_Palestine.html"

You can find all the barren, remote outposts of ancient to modern Israel that you like, but the fact is that the Jews made a desert bloom and created a state where there was nothing but dust.

And even IF there were a MILLION people living in the area that later became Israel, and even IF they were Egyptians, or Venezualans, or Martians, it makes NO difference to the core contention, to-wit:

Ownership of the land now called Israel has been held by the Jews, the Romans, the Ottoman Empire, the British, the UN, and the Israelis. It has NEVER legally belonged to anyone called "Palestinians."

Kerry,

And it doesn't matter a wit what the people there chose to call themselves. Those who occupy and live on the land before someone else shows up, are the owners. And the British frankly recognize that existence and ownership and ownership of local Arab inhabitants, in the British Mandate of Palestine and the Balfour declaration.

Try as you might, you are not going to wiggle out of the fact with legal mumbo jumbo, that the Arabs living in Palestine, before Jews moved in, have a right to the land the Jews unjustly kicked them off of. PERIOD. End of Story.

"And it doesn't matter a w[h]it what the people there chose to call themselves. Those who occupy and live on the land before someone else shows up, are the owners."

No, they aren't.

And the Jews DIDN'T "kick them off" of anything. The Arabs living in Israel were welcome to do so prior to the Arab attack, and they chose to LEAVE at that time, waiting for the Jews to be killed.

they chose to LEAVE at that time, waiting for the Jews to be killed.

Kerry,

Again idealism clouds your brain. There were numerous statements made by Israeli commanders that described forced expulsions of people...even those who didn't resist the occupation of their towns and villages. The Israelis also developed plans to expel anyone they saw as a potential threat. One prominent one was the Dalet plan.

In all fairness though the whole mess wasn't as simple as the Jews kicking out all of the Arabs. Some Arabs left because their leaders strong suggested it. And who wouldn't leave if enough fear was instilled in you that you thought your family would be killed...regardless of the source. But the latter shouldn't matter. The average "palestinian" shouldn't automatically forfeit his land because of a decision that was made in fear.

And since you are one that is all worried about rules, laws, and land titles, and who owned what.

When is Israel going to finish implementing UN Resolution 194, which codifies in International Law the right of the Palestinians to get back the land they had before it was taken from them.

Ahmanrah,

Did you know that the PLO Charter says this:

"Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world."

Would you mind explaining how?

Ahmanrah,

For your information, only UN Security Council Resolutions have the force of law. General Assembly Resolutions (such as 194) are recommendations. They "codify" nothing.

Kerry,

I could care less what the PLO says, I am concerned about the average Arab person that has gotten railroaded since 1948. And I could care less whether the UN recommendation is law or not, it establishes a precedent that the majority of the world recognizes that Arabs who were evicted from their lands in 1948 have a right to get it back. This is a basic human right, and should be recognized by all. End of story.