And the "Jewish Virtual Library" is an objective source for historical facts???? You've got to be kidding me. Try getting your facts from someplace where there are actual professional standards of accuracy and you'll see that everything I say has been documented again and again. Your comments about the fact that I was born and lived in Berkeley show that you're not coming from any kind of measured rational point of view. Since when does the fact that someone has lived somewhere account for their reading of historical evidence? Where's the "objectivity" to back that kind of bizarre assertion?

Ms. Gordon - As a professor, you have a duty to present historical facts in an objective manner. As a political commentator who makes no secret of his support for Israel, I am not so bound in any way, shape or form. However, I strive to remain true to the facts when writing about any subject, and this is no different. So let's begin with your assertion that "Palestine was a country". I know of no such fact in any histoirical record, however, since you don't like my source, let's start with one that is, as far as I am concerned, hardly unbiased; The United Nations:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Here we see that, according to this UN document, Palestine was a territory that came under British administration towards the end of the First World War (a war in which the Arabs in the region sided with Germany, BTW, as they did again after Hitler's rise to power and during World War II):

"All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"." Do note that I am not afraid to present a historical fact that many pro-Palestinian groups have obscenely twisted around as "proof" of a British conspiracy to aid Jewish immigration to the area in order to "ethnically cleanse " the region, namely, the Balfour Declaration.

Next we have this gem of revisionist history:

"There are two peoples with claims to one land, and one is the indigenous people who happened to have had the bad luck of being on land wanted by the other."

This completely negates thousands of years of Jewish presence in the region.

I'd like to know what your "objective" sources are that lead you to draw these conclusions.

I could go on, but what's the point? You obviously haven't had any objective lessons in Mideast history. As for my pointing out the fact that you lived in Berkeley, that's called satire. As a resident of the Bay Area, Berkeley's political leanings are hardly unknown to me. Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't create the bizarre political climate in Berkeley that has resulted in many referring to that city as "Berzerkely".

I wonder if Prof. Gordon is in favor of giving Kansas back to France, Spain or the Indians?

I'm sure she would be more than happy to do so as long as we weren't talking about returning the particular spot on which she owns a home or on which the building where she makes a comfortable living as a "doctor" of something or other is situated.

But let's be clear: Unlike the US, there has been a continual Jewish presence in the area to which the likes of Gordon refer as "Palestine" one hell of a lot longer than the people who refer to themselves as Palestinians. And, historically speaking (and accurately, I might add), there was the same opportunity for Palestinians as Israelis in 1947 with the Partition Plan, not to mention the other historically accurate fact that Jordan did fuck-all for the cause of "Palestinian" statehood for the 19 years that they had complete control of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967.
If people like Gordon want to advance the cause of a state for the Palestinians, they should start with being historically accurate as to what really occurred in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, a significant number of people will see through the bullshit and force an end to the bloodshed in the name of a "Palestinian" state, a wholly unacceptable cause for which to slaughter innocent women and children. Like the Hatuels.

Mark - I agree people are very ignorant on this subject! I, for one, am not as smart as I would like.

The link you gave was great. Next week I will be reading all the way through it to bone up on my history!

The mental gymnastics such people as Ms. Gordon must go through to arrive and perpetuate the claims of the "Palestinian people" are quite extraordinary. I am on an e-mail list where I declared that they Palestinians were an Un-people, meaning their claims to a separate and distinct historical unity were fallacious. I had one person write "Well they are a separate people now!" which may or may not be true, however, the fact that they may have become a "people" does not grant them an historical claim to the land. Under that criterion any group of humans may suddenly claim rights to almost any land simply because their relatives lived there one time.

Just think of all the lands Jews have lived in! (world domination meeting next tuesday eve at 5, my place. Mark don't forget the brownies this time, okay?)

Tuesday at five, it is. I'll bring the rest of the Elders of Zion along.