[QUOTE=habesor;650785]Pax,

I think that it is you who have the facts wrong. In 19 37 the Palestinian Arabs were offered a partition that included eighty percent of the territory between the river and the sea. They turned it down because they would not tollerate the existance of an independent Jewish state on even twenty percent of the territory. In 1939 the Palestinian Arab leadership turned down the British White paper which limited Jewish immigration and set up a unitary state on all of the territory with an Arab majority and some limited autonomous rights for the Jewish minority. The Palestinians turned that down (so did the Jews) because they wouldn't tollerate or recognize any Jewish national rights and insisted that the British remove the Jews from the territory or they would do so when they had the opportunity. In 1947 the UN recommended partition of the territory with the Jews getting 30 percent more of the land than the first partition proposal the difference being made up of the Negev which was considerd a dry wasteland, at the time, being assigned to the Jews. The Palestinian leadership announced that they would not accept the UN recommendation and warned that they would oppose it by force. The day after the UN General Assemby adopted the partition resolution, the Palestinian Arabs opened hostilities. The Palestinian leadership refused to recognize or accept any compromise with Jewish nationalism until the 1980's. To get an idea of the totality of this rejection one need only read the PLO Charter which was first adopted in 1964 and was supposedly altered during the Oslo peace process though no new version has appeared. The Hamas Covenant continues with this total rejection of Jewish nationalism and it still remains unaltered.

So when it comes to historical revisionism, Pax, you win first prize. Congratulations! By the way, you might want to find a good library and read up on our little conflict here before you continue to make any more comments.

Habesor[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________________________________

Habesor has the facts right. I do not know of a single instance in which Habesor has ever been factually wrong on this board. I do not always agree with him, but in no case have I ever found anything he has written to be factually incorrect.

And neither has anyone else been able to point out that his facts are wrong.

Of course, things should always be checked. BUT, Habesor has indeed established a perfect track record of being right about historic fact every time.

Ken...in pure moderator mode