To: Hawkmoon who wrote (15440 ) 6/8/2007 4:58:05 AM From: GUSTAVE JAEGER Respond to of 22250 SARMAN? Just call me Gus.... Re: The British/French, as victors over an aggressor (the Ottomans) had EVERY RIGHT to dispose of those conquered territories as they saw fit... ...provided they got the support of the locals, namely, the Arab tribes that settled the whole area at the time. After all, that's why Britain sent intelligence operatives like TE Lawrence to the region in the first place. The Brits, on their own, would have gone nowhere against the Ottoman occupier, they badly needed the Arab peoples to help them fighting Turkish troops --hence the so-called Arab Revolt:desertonfire.blogspot.com And the Arab tribes were lured to help the British with the promise that ALL Arab land would be placed under Arab sovereignty, especially the Holy places (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem). Of course, the Brits never told their Arab allies that they had "better plans" for Palestine. Arabs were screwed. Re: You see, I don't see any difference between subjugating the Palestinian people to the rule of a foreign Arab tribe and Jewish rule. LOL... I know, but the snag is... It's not up to YOU, Hawkmoon, to see whether there's "any difference" or not --it's up to the people concerned. And that's according to a simple, universally agreed, notion: SELF-DETERMINATION. The opposite is called "colonialism".... The consensus today among Arab peoples/opinions is not that everything must be done to topple Jordan's Hashemites or Syria's Alaouites... The Arab consensus is to help the Palestinians in their fight against the Zionist aggressor. The Arab consensus is to get Lebanon's estimated 450,000 Palestinian refugees back to their homeland(*). Gus (*) un.org