Since the start of the second intifada, the Spanish press, on the right as well as the left, has taken a particularly aggressive approach toward Israel, an approach that leaves out the reasons for Israel's actions and tends to ignore the Israeli victims in this conflict

The blond David of yesteryear surveys from a helicopter the occupied Palestinian lands and fires missiles at unarmed innocents; the delicate David of yore mans the most powerful tanks in the world and flattens and blows up what he finds in his tread; the lyrical David who sang praise to Bathsheba, incarnated today in the gargantuan figure of a war criminal named Ariel Sharon, hurls the 'poetic' message that first it is necessary to finish off the Palestinians in order later to negotiate with those who remain...

Intoxicated mentally by the messianic dream of a Greater Israel which will finally achieve the expansionist dreams of the most radical Zionism; contaminated by the monstrous and rooted 'certitude' that in this catastrophic and absurd world there exists a people chosen by God and that, consequently, all the actions of an obsessive, psychological and pathologically exclusivist racism are justified; educated and trained in the idea that any suffering that has been inflicted, or is being inflicted, or will be inflicted on everyone else, especially the Palestinians, will always be inferior to that which they themselves suffered in the Holocaust, the Jews endlessly scratch their own wound to keep it bleeding, to make it incurable, and they show it to the world as if it were a banner. Israel seizes hold of the terrible words of God in Deuteronomy: 'Vengeance is mine, and I will be repaid.'

If Europe had had a critical discussion that did not hesitate to condemn the grave and permanent mistakes of the Palestinian side, if Europe had been more critical of the Palestinians, we would be closer to a solution today. But Arafat enjoys support and legitimacy in Europe which allows him to never miss an opportunity for missing the opportunity of peace. I believe that if Europe had been more critical toward Arafat, toward the different aspects of Palestinian violence, if Europe had been tougher in its statements, the Palestinians would have been compelled to step back from the violence and the suicide attacks.

We, who are as good as you, swear to you, who are no better than us, to accept you as our king and sovereign lord, provided you observe all our liberties and laws--but if not, not.

You can be of great service to Germany one day," von Vett suggested.

I thought I hadn't heard right or that von Vett had lost his last marble. After all the putdowns I had endured in the past, his suggestion that I could play a positive role in Nazi Germany seemed to border on the ludicrous. But von Vett seemed serious. He predicted that one day, in the not-so-distant future, Germany would reclaim its colonies in east and southwest Africa. When that happened, he said, there would be a great demand for technically trained Germans who would go to Africa and train an develop an African workforce. "With your background and as an expert machinist," he explained, "you would be ideal for such an assignment."

A plausible model of adjustment to American life is an assimilation similar to the kind American Jews have experienced. Some feel that the creation of Reform Judaism was the greatest catalyst to Jews' assimilation... When Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise proposed the idea of Reform Judaism, it made, and still makes, much sense. Wise proposed that Jews adopt a "reformed" version of Judaism that would make life in America easier for Jews. Jews could still practice Judaism without having such practice interfere in their daily lives as Americans... I know my life would certainly be easier if I didn't have to worry about informing waiters at restaurants that I cannot eat ham, bacon, pork, or food prepared with lard. If a "Reform Islam" existed, I wouldn't have to worry about this issue and a few other aspects of Muslim life.

After the last general elections in my country where the incumbent president Mr. Robert Mugabe won the presidential election, the government has adopted a very aggressive land reforms programme. This programme is solely aimed at taking the land owned by white African farmers for redistribution to black africans. This programme has attracted worldwide condemnation from world leaders including British prime minister, mr Tony Blair and also forced several white farmers to flee the country for fear of victimization and physical abuse. Two weeks ago, our headquartes [sic] in Harare was attacked and looted by black protesters and in the process burnt down the whole building. Fortunately, they did not get access to the huge funds kept in the strong room which belong to the co-operation. This cash was kept at the secretariat rather than in the Bank for fear of seizure by the government. Now I have the funds in my possession and would need to get it invested in a viable business venture in Europe or Asia.

Further to my message in the above regard, dated 05.09.02, it has been established without doubt that Dudley Rogers of Tshabezi Safaris based in West Nicholson is definitely not the author of the fraudulent message referred to in my original statement.

By way of clarification Dudley Rogers did not send the bogus email claiming to be the Secretary of CFU despite his email address being given as the originator of the message. It would appear that the original email was sent from Japan to a person in the UK after Dudley Rogers name appeared in the New York Times along with others mentioned in the email, one being "Max" Crawford. There was no intention to put Dudley Rogers of Tshabezi Safaris in a bad light.

My name is George Nwanga Matongo, the son of Phiri Matongo, a farmer from Zimbabwe, murdered in the land dispute in my country. As led by my instict, I decided to contact you through email, after searching for contacts via the internet, as it is the only means I can contact anybody since I am cutting off ties with Zimbabwe for security and safety reasons. However, I apologize if this is not acceptable to you.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your most needed assistance in a business venture. Due to the the land and political problems in Zimbabwe, as a result of President Robert Mugabe's introduction of new Land Act Reform wholly affecting the rich white farmers and the few rich black farmers, and his desire to hold on to power for life, my father for saw the danger that came in Zimbabwe

President Mugabe's support for the violent Zimbabwean war veterans and some lunatics in the society, led to the murder of my beloved father and other innocent lives. I was continually threatened to abandon my inheritance from my father after he was murdered. I resited
for a while, but when the danger became unbearable, and I survived two murder attempts, I fled Zimbabwe.

1) Victory of fundamentalism over "assimilation?" I think that, you know, worshipping foreign gods in the Jerusalem temple is something a bit more than assimilating.

2) at the (Conservative) synagogue I went to in Pittsburgh (boy, does that town have a lot of synagogues!) over the Thanksgiving holiday, the rabbi made the excellent point that the Makkabis were actually kind of assimilated--had they not been familiar with Greek methods of warfare and discipline, they would not have been able to defeat that scurrilous Antiokhos.

Although the so-called intellectual elite of the Palestinian Diaspora pays lip service to the concept of compromise, they really don't support it. Most Diaspora Palestinians live in a national dysfunctionalism driven by historical emotions they can't seem to overcome. This is fed by internal Palestinian divisions, Arab factionalism and the rise of religious extremism.

They lack the courage to recognize that compromise is not a sign of weakness or shame, but a sign of strength. More importantly, they are incapable of overcoming their shortcomings on their own [...]

Compromise doesn't mean that you accept the reasons why Israel was created or the legal premise on which Israel has asserted its right to land. It does mean that you set aside those differences for the greater good.

Palestinians can accept Israel's right to exist without compromising their own principles. And, they can view compromise as a national victory, too.

Israel's Arab voters still look upon themselves as if they are voters in Arab countries, where elections are either rigged or irrelevant. They need to become politically savvy and professional about voting. They must abandon their naive beliefs not only in how they vote, but also in how they deal with Israel's Jewish majority. [...]

In the January 28 elections, Israel's Arabs have a strategic option before them if they vote in full force, vote for the Labor Party and abandon suicide voting for out-of-touch radical parties, and couple their vote with strong proclamations urging an end to the intifada and a return to peace negotiations.

If the Israeli Arabs have done anything over the years through their politics, they have helped breed Israeli views that the peace process can't work, and that an independent Palestinian state would be a threat and not a solution.

The Court examined the question of whether the refusal to allow the petitioners to build their home in Katzir constituted impermissible discrimination. The Court's examination proceeded in two stages. First, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land directly to its citizens on the basis of religionor nationality. The answer is no. As a general rule, the principle of equality prohibits the State from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The principle also applies to the allocation of State land. This conclusion is derived both from the values of Israel as a Democratic State and from the values of Israel as a Jewish State.
The Jewish character of the State does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens. In Israel, Jews and non-Jews are citizens with equal rights and responsibilities. The State engages in impermissible discrimination even if it is also willing to allocate State land for the purpose of establishing an exclusively Arab settlement, as long as it permits a group of Jews, without distinguishing characteristics, to establish an exclusively Jewish settlement on State land ("separate is inherently unequal").

Next, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land to the Jewish Agency knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The answer is no. Where one may not discriminate directly, one may not discriminate indirectly. If the State, through its own actions, may not discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality, it may not facilitate such discrimination by a third party.