First and foremost, her family was closely aligned with the PLF, who are Marxists, and not religious in nature.  He father was a large donor to the PLF and the PLO (both organizations are not, nor have ever been very religious) therefore, that is why he was able to visit.

He also has a picture of himself and Arafat embracing above his fireplace, and because his brother was THE general of the PLO armies, he did hold a VIP status in the PLO prior to Arafats death, and his brother's kidnapping and arrest by Shin Bet/Mossad.

He cannot enter the territories anymore because Arafat is dead, and his brother is rotting away in prison.  So you'd be right in asserting that he would no longer be welcome under the Hamas regime, because he has never been Hamas-friendly per se.

And as for the justified hate you spoke of, I could not agree less. I have plenty of reason to hate people for how I grew up... I grew up in poverty, and was kicked around myself.  Of course, instead of channeling my hatred by destructive means, I decided that I would become wealthy instead.  Which I did, and that has been the best revenge that I could have possibly dished out.Succeeding when others want to see you fail, and actively pursue such can only be countered by doing exactly the opposite...

But the Palestinian children ARE taught to HATE Jews and the active goal of the PLO and Hamas is to "drive the Jews into the sea"

It's been part of both organizations charters since day one, and their school textbooks call for the destruction of Israel, and their children ARE taught from a very young age on how to shoot rifles and commit guerilla warfare and terrorism.

Those are not matters of opinion, they have been proven time and time again with factual proof.  My buddy Abdul moved over here for that reason.  He's no fan of Israel, but he didn't want his kids being raised in environment that glorified suicide in the form of straping a bomb on one's self and killing other human beings.  Two of my closest friends in life are Palestinian Muslims, and while we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, we both love our kids more than we hate our enemies, so we have a common ground.

But I do certainly agree with you on the Arabic leaders.. they are too busy fighting amongst themselves.  If the truth be known, that is why they lost 4 consecutive wars to Israel... each Arab leader wants to be in charge, and therefore, no one is.  They squable amongst themselves and accomplish nothing. 

Arafat was handed over 99% of his demands at the Wye River Accords/Camp David II, he still said no.  That isn't peace, that's greed.  The only three Arab countries that are decent is Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  Both of those nations have built a stable modern infrastructure for their people and actually modernized their nations.  Every Arab country needs to do the same... they all need to build a modern nation before their oil runs out, which it will someday.  They need to use that money to better the lives of their people and build industry that will outlast the oil.  The problem with the middle east is that the leaders are too busy sucking the oil from the ground and spending on luxuries and palaces while their people live in poverty.  And what will happen 60 years from now when the oil is gone?  They will a 13th century country again overnight, because too many Arab leaders are worried about living a life of luxury now, and not thinking about the future.  Anyway...

And there is nothing stupid about your opinions.  If you want peace for both Muslim and Jew, then you and I are on the same page.  Unfortunately, us wanting it is not enough.  The leadership really doesn't want that, they have their own agendas, and that's why the peace process will never work.  In the 6th and 7th century, during the time of the prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Jews and Muslims were on the same page, and that train wrecked somewhere along the way.

Only if he gives me a news article about 5-year-old Jewish terrorist kids and I reject it as merely secondhand (therefore worthless) evidence.

 Who said anything about hatred of second hand evidence, I just said it wasn't enough.

Also

But, Doherty disagrees with the mainstream scholars on the strength of the case against the hypothesis, and comments that "contempt is not to be mistaken for refutation".He states that "interests, both religious and secular, have traditionally mounted a campaign against it,"[99] and states that mainstream scholarship is guilty of a "notable lack of proper understanding of the mythicist case,"[100] leading to "the non-professional scholar" and "well-informed amateur on the internet" becoming those whom he regards as "quite educated (meaning largely self-educated) in biblical research."[100] "There are those, scholars and laypeople alike, who regularly assume that something ‘big’ and unique, some powerful figure, had to be responsible for the Christian movement. But if one has consistently misread that movement, failed to recognize its antecedents, the steps of its development, imposed preconceptions upon it, they will be forever forced to make the same erroneous assumption, and alternatives will not commend themselves." [100] 

He's right, contempt for the theory is one thing, but contempt doesn't mean they have refuted it, or that they can even prove it wrong, only that they don't like it.

No, actually he said "the evolution of man", so bacteria aren't good enough.  Nor worms, which I can cite a document for.

 Wrong, he gave you second hand evidence and you refused to accept it, because it wasn't enough ,same thing i'm asking of you, your so called evidence is nothing at all and when I ask for more you say it is unreasonable

Ummm ... thus my final paragraph, which links to an overview of the refutations.  Weren't you paying attention?

 Wrong again, his first comment was evolution, then he asked about man, like I said, once you have the evidence for the lesser organisms, then you have some support for what you guys are referring to as "second hand" the fossil evidence and genetics

 Yeah I did, and I have glanced over that site before, and I find its arguments to be as weak as yours

First and foremost, I didn't throw the historical proofs of Jesus out of the window.  Scholars, historians, and archaeologists much smarter than I did that, and have proven without a shadow of a doubt that the accuracy of Josephus and Tacitus supposed writings were frauds.

Secondly, the "large body of scholars" (whoever that is) never said that the work wasn't edited.  The only man that I ever read about doing such Robert van Voerst (I might be spelling his name wrong) and he has long been a proponent of Christian theology, and therefore has a bias. 

Listen man, I really don't care if you want to be a Christian... that's great.  I don't concern myself with other people's religious beliefs.  I only got involved in this conversation when the subject of "Jews being responsible for Jesus' death" came up.  That's a real sore point for me, and it makes my head want to explode. 

I have no clue if Jesus ever really existed.  He may have been a nice, normal man... he could have been a violent revolutionary... he may have not really existed.  I just don't know.  The only thing I know for sure, and without a shadow of a doubt in my mind is that that man was not the son of God in the literal sense, and he wasn't ha'moshiach, nor was he actually God.  But if you want to worship a man of the flesh and be an idolater, be my guest.  If my neighbor wants to worship his german sheppard, that's his business too.  I really just don't care what they believe until they start that anti-Jewish crap... in which case I will get involved every time.  After 2000 years of "blame the Jews", I just don't have the stomach for it anymore.

Wrong -- I'm concerned about the impartiality of him and his source, and also am concerned that the passage in question is not plausible given known facts.  Unless you have similar concerns about the Roman historians and reports?