Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/28/07 06:12 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/27/07 08:43 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: So both rationally, morally, and in some cases religiously, Israel has the right to exist.

You have said you are Lebanese Christian before, right?

I'm half Lebanese Maronite Arab Christian, and half German.

I never really understod why you support Israel (if that is true about your origins).

First of all, there are actually many Lebanese that support Israel, don't let Shia Muslims who follow Hezbollah fool you, they are a minority. Secondly, I support Israel for a whole slew of reasons.

A) I see Israel as a democratic, free, and equal society in a region where such a nation has never before existed. I've been to Israel and I've personally witnessed that Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of all religions coexist peacefully there because of their emphasis on religious freedom and equal rights that they teach their children. A man in full Orthodox Jew dress can walk into the Muslim sector of Jerusalem, buy a Coke from an Arab Muslim vendor, exchange a smile and a "Shalom" or "As-Salamu Alaykum" without any incident. There are of course exceptions, but are few and far between.

B) I can go to Israel and not get kidnapped for being A) American and B) Christian. The same can't be said if I were to travel to the Palestinian territories unguarded. And conversely, a Palestinian could go to Israel and be treated kindly. Their societies are polar opposites, the Israelis are empathetic and civilized, the surrounding societies are barbaric and blood thirsty.

C) I believe that Israel is a counter-balance to Arab countries that would be a far larger threat to the west if Israel wasn't there to keep them in check. Israel is the only REAL ally we have, or will have in the Middle East for a very long time.

D) I don't buy into the anti-Israel hysteria that is based on lies, propaganda, and purely agenda-driven nonsense. Israel has been to blame for innocent civilian casualties, yes. Yet the Israelis don't have the POLICY of doing this, but their enemies do. Their enemies specifically kill civilians and intentionally use their own people as human shields and as sources of propaganda with which to create deceptive images for the world to see. In Israel, children are taught to love their neighbor, in Palestine, and much of the Arab world, they are taught that Israelis drink the blood of Muslims, and that killing Jews and Christians gives them a ticket to paradise where 72 tight, young virgins await them.

E) For religious reasons. And these religious reasons were not the first source of support for Israel, it was subsequent after reaching my conclusion based on reason and experience. I wasn't even religious at the time I first started siding with Israel. But now I believe that the reestablishment of Israel is probably the most religiously significant event for Christians since the life and death of Jesus. Nobody ever thought that the Biblical revelations of Israel being reunited would take place, but it did.

Unless one thing. Did your family ever have any connection to the Phalange or other Maronite Christian groups inside Lebanon?

Yeah Maronites.

And when did your family come over here just out of curiosity?

Well, part of my mom's family has been in the US since the Revolutionary War, I've checked my Genealogy. My dad however was born here but lived in Lebanon for a few years, but his older brothers and sisters were born in Lebanon and never became US citizens, and they were all killed in the Lebanese Civil War, as were their children. Only my dad's little brother and a few cousins, aunts and uncles escaped, by the help of Israeli soldiers who saved their lives and gave them medical treatment. This was all while their Lebanese Muslim neighbors and friends turned against them, and reported them to Muslim militias.

My only living uncle on my dad's side has told me about what he experienced and saw, he saw the contrast between the typical Arab society in which people kill eachother for religious reasons, to merciful Israelis who saved them and went through great effort to evacuate them from Lebanon and give them medical treatment. My uncle was always taught as a child that the Israelis were evil, that they ate children, drank their blood, that they were merciless monsters and the spawn of Satan, and he believed it.

Yet my uncle saw the truth. My uncle personally witnessed how Muslim militias beheaded entire Christian families from the smallest child up to the fathers who were forced to watch their wives raped before being beheaded themselves.

Then my uncle stayed in Israel until he got a visa to the US, and in Israel he was treated with hospitality. Jewish, Christian, and Israeli Muslim families would all let displaced Lebanese stay in their homes, and would feed them and even pay for their plane tickets etc..

That is the biggest reason why I support Israel. Israel has a cultural and political decency that is almost nonexistent in their surrounding neighboring countries.

---

At 4/28/07 10:36 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Even me?

ESPECIALLY you. ALL ARE ON NOTICE. ARGHHH.

At 4/28/07 11:15 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My only living uncle on my dad's side has told me about what he experienced and saw, he saw the contrast between the typical Arab society in which people kill eachother for religious reasons, to merciful Israelis who saved them and went through great effort to evacuate them from Lebanon and give them medical treatment.

In Hizbullahs defense, Israel did invade Lebanon for kinda suspect reasons (what was it, the attempted assasination of some Israeli at the UN back in '82 or something like that)? And occupying a nation never really endears a population to its occupier. Just ask Lebanon with Syria or America with Iraq.

Yet my uncle saw the truth. My uncle personally witnessed how Muslim militias beheaded entire Christian families from the smallest child up to the fathers who were forced to watch their wives raped before being beheaded themselves.

Then again, the Phalange in Lebanon do not exactly have a stellar reputation either. Massacres happened both ways among both militias. I am not in a position to judge one side or the other, ya know? Both Christian and Muslim militias did suspect things, at best.

I do respect you do have a good personal reason to defend Israel. The Israelis may have given the Muslims in Lebanon the royal shafting of a lifetime but they did back their Christian groups there. And considering your familial circumstances surrounding the whole Lebanon/Israel/Hizbullah issue, your backing the hand that did feed your people seems pretty honorable in my viewpoint.

---

At 4/29/07 03:15 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/28/07 11:15 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: My only living uncle on my dad's side has told me about what he experienced and saw, he saw the contrast between the typical Arab society in which people kill eachother for religious reasons, to merciful Israelis who saved them and went through great effort to evacuate them from Lebanon and give them medical treatment.

In Hizbullahs defense, Israel did invade Lebanon for kinda suspect reasons (what was it, the attempted assasination of some Israeli at the UN back in '82 or something like that)?

And after repeated cross-border attacks by Hezbollah and the PLO (who were in Lebanon fomenting the whole ordeal). Israel invaded in 82 to keep a buffer zone north of the Lebanon-Israel border by pushing the Hezbollah, PLO, and some other Islamic groups at a distance where they could no longer launch rockets or make lightning raids into Israel.

Yet my uncle saw the truth. My uncle personally witnessed how Muslim militias beheaded entire Christian families from the smallest child up to the fathers who were forced to watch their wives raped before being beheaded themselves.

Then again, the Phalange in Lebanon do not exactly have a stellar reputation either.

I'm aware of that. But my family wasn't associated with any militias. They were killed simply for being Christian.

Massacres happened both ways among both militias. I am not in a position to judge one side or the other, ya know? Both Christian and Muslim militias did suspect things, at best.

Yeah, but the issue here is the support for Israel. I'm not really defending the Phalange, or any groups inside of Lebanon that participated in the civil war. Israel participated in residual sectarian fighting within Lebanon, but among innocent CIVILIANS, Israel treated Christians and Muslim refugees with mercy and dignity that no other Middle Easter country would have done at the time.

I do respect you do have a good personal reason to defend Israel. The Israelis may have given the Muslims in Lebanon the royal shafting of a lifetime but they did back their Christian groups there.

The Israelis were actually allied with some Muslim groups. The Lebanese Civil War was more complicated than most people know. There were Christian-Muslim alliances, Pro-Soviet secularist alliances, and many mixes between with varying degrees. In the South Lebanon conflict (which Lebanese consider to be just an extension of the civil war) Israel supported the SLA, which had Christian and Muslim components.

But my point is, Israel still treated the innocent civilians on both sides with mercy. They didn't have the policy of just butchering every person on the other side. Muslims, Christians, and Druze refugees were all treated equally by Israel, they were given medical treatment, housing, and some were given Israeli citizenship. No other country would have done that.

And considering your familial circumstances surrounding the whole Lebanon/Israel/Hizbullah issue, your backing the hand that did feed your people seems pretty honorable in my viewpoint.

Regardless, I think my support for Israel is reasonable even if I had no personal reasons for it. Israel is a hopeful, democratic country with religious equality in a region where they are surrounded by Islamic Fundamentalists who are the polar opposite.

---

At 4/29/07 03:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And after repeated cross-border attacks by Hezbollah and the PLO (who were in Lebanon fomenting the whole ordeal).

Hizbullah was not formed until 1982. They can hardly be blamed for any of that mess.

And a lot of crap things have been justified by nations looking for a "buffer zone." The USSR, China, and Germany immediately jump to mind. Whether Israel had a legitimate claim is debatable but it is demonstratable that when you occupy other countries, you create native resistance.

Regardless, I think my support for Israel is reasonable even if I had no personal reasons for it. Israel is a hopeful, democratic country with religious equality in a region where they are surrounded by Islamic Fundamentalists who are the polar opposite.

That may be. I am not going to argue that. But America has no reason to support them, they create to many problems for us and dont provide any real benefits to us. I really have seen any conclusive evidence to justify the billions we spend them a year in loans, freebies, and debt forgiveness, not to mention the complete political backing we have been giving them. I may ethically believe they are a decent nation but that doesnt mean I want to sully my nations name for them, they aint worth it. Hell, they have one of the highest GDP's in the word. If they cant stand on their own with their agressive tactics they need to learn to start cooperating. So cut them loose from our no strings attached backing and let them handle their own shit.

---

At 4/29/07 04:26 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/29/07 03:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And after repeated cross-border attacks by Hezbollah and the PLO (who were in Lebanon fomenting the whole ordeal).

Hizbullah was not formed until 1982. They can hardly be blamed for any of that mess.

Well only in name, they were formed by Shia islamic groups, who were alligned with the Palestinians and harbored the PLO.

And a lot of crap things have been justified by nations looking for a "buffer zone." The USSR, China, and Germany immediately jump to mind. Whether Israel had a legitimate claim is debatable but it is demonstratable that when you occupy other countries, you create native resistance.

And when Israel withdraws from the lands that they once occupied in order to concede to the native resistance, these "resistance" fighters exploit it and validate their terrorist attacks as good policy. Israel conceded many settlements in order to comprimise with the Palestinians, but the Palestinians through their propaganda machine made it out to appear that they fought for it and took it back by force from Israel.

Therefore Israel can't play the game of pretending that simply appealing to the Palestinians is going to do anything. They have an oath to their people, therefor they have a legitimate right to create a buffer zone to prevent protect their own people. It has already been proven that conceding to the terrorists only emboldens them, it's more of a wise play to actually prevent them from attacking you rather than expecting them not to after giving something to them they can exploit.

Regardless, I think my support for Israel is reasonable even if I had no personal reasons for it. Israel is a hopeful, democratic country with religious equality in a region where they are surrounded by Islamic Fundamentalists who are the polar opposite.

That may be. I am not going to argue that. But America has no reason to support them, they create to many problems for us and dont provide any real benefits to us.

Actually we have every reason to support Israel. They are a democratic society in the middle of the region that is filled with our enemies.

We have both an obligation as the beacon of liberty to support Israel, and we also need to support them to ensure we have a go-to-guy in the middle east when (not if) shit gets worse than it already is.

I really have seen any conclusive evidence to justify the billions we spend them a year in loans, freebies, and debt forgiveness, not to mention the complete political backing we have been giving them. I may ethically believe they are a decent nation but that doesnt mean I want to sully my nations name for them, they aint worth it.

Frankly I don't give a fuck what other people think about it. People are going to hate the US regardless, especially Islamists who see America as the only country in the world to prevent them from creating an Islamic empire.

Israel is our ally, they depend on us, but we also benefit from their existence. We are inextricably linked, cutting off aid to Israel would hurt us.

Hell, they have one of the highest GDP's in the word.

No they don't. Neither the Israeli GDP nor GDP per capita is very high.

If they cant stand on their own with their agressive tactics they need to learn to start cooperating.

Pfft, they do cooperate and every time they do their enemies exploit it and never abide by their obligations that were made in order to get concessions from Israel. Then people end up blaming Israel anyway because the Palestinians are the under dog and the liberal media plays into it.

So cut them loose from our no strings attached backing and let them handle their own shit.

That would be one of the biggest mistakes ever.

---

At 4/29/07 04:46 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: We have both an obligation as the beacon of liberty to support Israel, and we also need to support them to ensure we have a go-to-guy in the middle east when (not if) shit gets worse than it already is.

Go to guy? When have they ever been "go to" for America? They havent helped in either Iraq war, dont make us any allies we didnt already have, and create nothing but negative publicity for us in the region.

As for go to, we already have Turkey. And now Iraq. We dont need Israel for any regional stability or balance of power arguments and our military can handle anything in the region withougt Israel as it is. The only rational argument I can find in a defense of our support for Israel is a divide and conqueor like defense where we divide and fracture an otherwise possibly united Arab front. I dont think our leaders are that smart or united to implement that policy between different adminstrations through the years, however, so I discount it as a moot argument.

And we have no obligation to Israel, none. They must lie in a bed of their own creation (even if it isnt solely their creation). America is only artifically making this bed more bearable because of our hegemon status and I have seen no positive outcomes coming from this support. So cut them loose.

Israel is our ally, they depend on us, but we also benefit from their existence. We are inextricably linked, cutting off aid to Israel would hurt us.

How? In concrete terms, how are they worth the unlimited capitol and political support America hands them with no strings attached? They dont even listen to us, its not like they are good political subordinates.

No they don't. Neither the Israeli GDP nor GDP per capita is very high.

Their GDP and PPP are both extremely high in relation to their size. Thei growth rate is steady and inflation is under control. They have an incredibly healthy economy and to argue otherwise is kinda ridiculous.

---

How come half the stuff on Politics is about religion?
arent they supposed to be kept seprate (in the US anyway)

Seriously

---

At 4/29/07 08:04 AM, bob111unknown wrote: How come half the stuff on Politics is about religion?
arent they supposed to be kept seprate (in the US anyway)

Seriously

Not in debate.
US strives to create a mutual respect for secular and non-secular institutions by seperating both things apart.

Since NG isn't a public instiution that uses public governmental funds... we can talk about religion and stuff.

---

At 4/29/07 05:05 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

Go to guy? When have they ever been "go to" for America? They havent helped in either Iraq war, dont make us any allies we didnt already have, and create nothing but negative publicity for us in the region.

1. During the Cold War, Israel served as a testing ground for American and Western technology against Russian tech.
2. Israel's been killing terrorists since 1948.
3. Supporting democracies shouldn't be based on the advantages it gives us, even though it tends to...
4. It's a hotbed for new technologies.

As for go to, we already have Turkey. And now Iraq.

Since when can Iraq balance out anything? If we hadn't invaded, it would have continued to balance out Iran. Silly neo-cons...

---

At 4/29/07 03:26 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Since when can Iraq balance out anything? If we hadn't invaded, it would have continued to balance out Iran.

Every single one of your arguments is terrible. Every single one in support for the blank check backing we give Israel is not worth any one of those points, let alone all of them together. You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it. If you want them to be argued for real, I will but as it is now they are arugments I do not take seriously in the least. If you want me to take them seriously, just say.

Silly neo-cons...

This is coming from the stupid liberal who advocates blank check support of Israel? I knew you were an idiot but litlte did I know just how moronic you were.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
Fucking retard, maybe you should figure out what labels mean before you start throwing them around.

In case you dont get it, you are the neo con here, not me.

---

At 4/29/07 07:14 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 4/29/07 03:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The Israelis were actually allied with some Muslim groups. The Lebanese Civil War was more complicated than most people know. There were Christian-Muslim alliances, Pro-Soviet secularist alliances, and many mixes between with varying degrees. In the South Lebanon conflict (which Lebanese consider to be just an extension of the civil war) Israel supported the SLA, which had Christian and Muslim components.

How far stretched were the alliances? What I mean is like, it's probably rare, but I can probably point to a communist who supports the war in Iraq, and say there's a communist alliance in it.

I really don't feel like going to great lengths to explain the Lebanese civil war and the South lebanon conflict to you, but just wiki that shit and you'll see. It was way, way more complicated than people understand. The initial war was mostly sectarian at its climax, but there were many groups based on political philosophies and secular ideals as well, that included multiple religions.

By "allied", do you mean leaders of those groups were actively giving material support to either Israel or Hezbollah, or were they just saying "hey, you put up a good fight there"?

No, actually Israel provided material aid to the SLA and fought along side them when Israel made incursions into souther Lebanon.

---

At 4/27/07 08:10 PM, fli wrote:
So here's the question:
Is God a valid answer to why Isreal should exist?

Yes. I believe God lives and dies in each of us.

Through "our" (read: everyone's) actions, Israel has the "valid" right to exist. Therefore the question of "Should Israel exist because God validated the inception?" becomes easier to understand and easier to grasp.

Right?

At 4/28/07 06:12 PM, Demosthenez wrote: This thread is filled with such outright stupidity and and ignorance it is sickening.

Yeah but if the dim-witted didn't poke their penises in their ears every post they made, people who actually cared about the topic at hand wouldn't debate them or pay attention to them or talk to them.

Thus, Newgrounds.

---

At 4/30/07 04:54 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 4/27/07 08:10 PM, fli wrote:
So here's the question:
Is God a valid answer to why Isreal should exist?

Yes. I believe God lives and dies in each of us.

Through "our" (read: everyone's) actions, Israel has the "valid" right to exist. Therefore the question of "Should Israel exist because God validated the inception?" becomes easier to understand and easier to grasp.

Right?

Here's the thing. God is still a debateable thing. Exists or doesn't exists. So when you put it in that way, it presumes that everyone believes in God. Which is clearly not the case for everyone.

The question was can the Isrealites claim that the Promised Land is theirs because they believe (let's emphasize that part) that God gave them these lands.

Because those lands didn't belong to them originally. It was conquered and taken away from the various peoples that used to live in those lands. (We can see this in the Book of Joshua.) And when they lost it, they lost it. And the thing that happened in 1948 was another violent re-conquering of the lands again. (Although, some will say it was a Declaration of Independence, but I can't view that way although I understand the reasons why they view like that.)

And all the reasons that I've seen why Isreal has a right to exist is just really an extension of the belief that God gave them those lands.

I believe that the new generations born past 1948 have a reason to call Isreal as their home. They were born there. I can agree that people born prior to that date, even the Jews, can call that place their home. Because they were born there.

What I can't agree is people taking those lands, when they were born in all these places in Europe, usurping this small sliver of a thumb nail of a land, and calling it their home. Because the Palestinians also have the equal right to exist just like the Jews, and it seemed that the Jews were invalidating their right on that year in 1948. They had to make Palestinans homeless in order to get the Promised Land.

Which is sad because one would think that that Jews would learn from the Holocaust what it would mean to be kicked out of their homes and to have their posessions to be stolen.

---

At 4/30/07 05:29 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:54 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 4/27/07 08:10 PM, fli wrote:
So here's the question:
Is God a valid answer to why Isreal should exist?

Yes. I believe God lives and dies in each of us.

Through "our" (read: everyone's) actions, Israel has the "valid" right to exist. Therefore the question of "Should Israel exist because God validated the inception?" becomes easier to understand and easier to grasp.

Right?

Here's the thing. God is still a debateable thing. Exists or doesn't exists. So when you put it in that way, it presumes that everyone believes in God. Which is clearly not the case for everyone.

Everything is debatable, because God gave us perception; one view through millions of eyes. What isn't possible, however, is a different story.

One needs not to believe in God to participate in God.

The question was can the Isrealites claim that the Promised Land is theirs because they believe (let's emphasize that part) that God gave them these lands.

Didn't he?

If God didn't, as previously described/defined by myself, who did? Can you deny them the land on the grounds they did not justify themselves to you instead of God? Would that be wise?

Because those lands didn't belong to them originally. It was conquered and taken away from the various peoples that used to live in those lands. (We can see this in the Book of Joshua.) And when they lost it, they lost it. And the thing that happened in 1948 was another violent re-conquering of the lands again. (Although, some will say it was a Declaration of Independence, but I can't view that way although I understand the reasons why they view like that.)

Why can't you view it that way?

All land was given to us to rule over, even Israel, even Antarctica. I'm genuinely intrigued you haven't found it within yourself to view the modern state of Israel as valid yet. Please explain more.

And all the reasons that I've seen why Isreal has a right to exist is just really an extension of the belief that God gave them those lands.

God gave Earth to man. To believe otherwise would be an exercise in ignorance.

Elohim is plural, the original Hebrew reference to God in the beginning of Genesis.

I believe that the new generations born past 1948 have a reason to call Isreal as their home. They were born there. I can agree that people born prior to that date, even the Jews, can call that place their home. Because they were born there.

Yes.

What I can't agree is people taking those lands, when they were born in all these places in Europe, usurping this small sliver of a thumb nail of a land, and calling it their home.

Then you must equally disagree with those born in Mexico moving all over Texas and California and calling the United States their home.

But you aren't. Why?

Because the Palestinians also have the equal right to exist just like the Jews, and it seemed that the Jews were invalidating their right on that year in 1948.

I believe you misunderstand "the right to exist", or more likely, are just tossing that term around.

The right to exist? How do you extend this right to those who would kill regardless of the rights of others?

Can you explain why non-muslim must pay a special tax because of their beliefs, while ALL Israeli citizens, regardless of religion, must simply serve 2 years to be afforded all human rights, including the right to exist? Can the same be said about the opposers of Israel; the Arab states; the Palestinians; the Shar'ia form of government?

They had to make Palestinans homeless in order to get the Promised Land.

How so? Many non-Jews live in Israel.

What is "Palestine" to you?

Which is sad because one would think that that Jews would learn from the Holocaust what it would mean to be kicked out of their homes and to have their posessions to be stolen.

Fucking sick, kiddo.

---

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: If God didn't, as previously described/defined by myself, who did? Can you deny them the land on the grounds they did not justify themselves to you instead of God? Would that be wise?

Nobody gave the lands to them. That was the point. The lands were conquered, and I believe God isn't a valid answer to their action.

Why can't you view it that way?

Because they came in to another people's lands and took them. Declaring Independence suggests that they were, some how, opressed by the people who were living on those lands. Which was not the case. When the Spanish were in Mexico, Peru, all over Latin America, they were opressing the indigenious and the native born people in those lands. When the British were in India, they were controlling it and not the Indians. So when those people fought back, that's declaring independence.

But with Isreal, they hadn't been a country for years although they may had been Jews living there prior hand.

All land was given to us to rule over, even Israel, even Antarctica. I'm genuinely intrigued you haven't found it within yourself to view the modern state of Israel as valid yet. Please explain more.

Valid?

And all the reasons that I've seen why Isreal has a right to exist is just really an extension of the belief that God gave them those lands.

God gave Earth to man. To believe otherwise would be an exercise in ignorance.

Another debateable thing.
But even the Palestinians claim that God gave them those lands.

And it's the same God.
Which invalidates the reason to use God as a way to own land.

What I can't agree is people taking those lands, when they were born in all these places in Europe, usurping this small sliver of a thumb nail of a land, and calling it their home.

Then you must equally disagree with those born in Mexico moving all over Texas and California and calling the United States their home.

But you aren't. Why?

Because immigration, legally or illegally, isn't the same thing as taking someone else's home.

The way the came into those lands is so different because the intention was to take the land and to create a different government.

That's not the situation when a guy from another Mexico goes to Texas to live there. Plus, the situation has a different set of problems which can't compare to the ones with the Palestinans/ Isrealites problem. Except, maybe-- if we look at Manifest Destiny and how the United States conquered the Southwest.

I believe you misunderstand "the right to exist", or more likely, are just tossing that term around.

No, I'm not.
Isreal believes it's right to exist as a state as a unique culture different from others. But what about the Palestinians? They also have their culture and as much right to exist on the lands whom their forefathers were born.

The right to exist? How do you extend this right to those who would kill regardless of the rights of others?

Oh-- like the Isrealites haven't killed.
Let's not pretend that there's a victim here-- both sides are at fault for kiling people, and to pick one side and say they're innocent is just being naive.

How so? Many non-Jews live in Israel.

In 1948. They forced the non-Jews out of their homes. In order to create Isreal.

What is "Palestine" to you?

I don't know.

All I just know is that I don't agree with what happened in 1948 or the reasoning behind that. To me, it's called taking someone else's home.
would mean to be kicked out of their homes and to have their posessions to be stolen.

Fucking sick, kiddo.

What is sick?
That's history. In 1939 when the Jews were first started to be kicked out their homes and forced in concentration camps, they became homeless. And right after the war was finished, they had no homes because the Nazis sold them to other people.

And with that fresh in their mind they make other peoples homeless inorder to regain a home. How did they not learn how it felt to be homeless? If someone hurts me in a certain way, I don't want to hurt other people in that certain way because I know how it feels.

---

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: If God didn't, as previously described/defined by myself, who did? Can you deny them the land on the grounds they did not justify themselves to you instead of God? Would that be wise?

Nobody gave the lands to them. That was the point. The lands were conquered, and I believe God isn't a valid answer to their action.

Okay. I feel like I'm talking to Smarterchild.

We need to take a step back and restate our positions.

Do you believe Israel is not a valid nation?

If yes, it's because they "conquered" the land that "wasn't theirs". Have I about summed up your stance on what you believe that region had experienced over the last couple thousands of years?

And all the reasons that I've seen why Isreal has a right to exist is just really an extension of the belief that God gave them those lands.

God gave Earth to man. To believe otherwise would be an exercise in ignorance.

Another debateable thing.

Does man fucking own earth or not? Debate me on it, if it's so up-in-the-air. If you can't don't fucking write it.

But even the Palestinians claim that God gave them those lands.

And it's the same God.

NO IT'S NOT FOR CHRISTS SAKE.

JUDAISM=/=ISLAM=/=AGNOSTICISM

These people have VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT perceptions of God. Holy shit.

Which invalidates the reason to use God as a way to own land.

How so?

When I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+3=6, it doesn't mean that the value of "2" is invalid.

What I can't agree is people taking those lands, when they were born in all these places in Europe, usurping this small sliver of a thumb nail of a land, and calling it their home.

Then you must equally disagree with those born in Mexico moving all over Texas and California and calling the United States their home.

But you aren't. Why?

Because immigration, legally or illegally, isn't the same thing as taking someone else's home.

Bullshit in the 1st degree. By that logic, every Jew in Israel that displaced a lazy "palestinian" is not only justified, but righteous!

The way the came into those lands is so different because the intention was to take the land and to create a different government.

So what kind of government did Palestine have? I was under the impression there wasn't any government where Israel now stands . . . the same way nomadic Native Americans couldn't trouble themselves with a world larger than their herd of buffalo.

Your sense of entitlement could only be allowed to fester in a society as coddling as ours. That's my opinion, fire and brimstone that all you want, I'm above it.

I believe you misunderstand "the right to exist", or more likely, are just tossing that term around.

No, I'm not.
Isreal believes it's right to exist as a state as a unique culture different from others. But what about the Palestinians? They also have their culture and as much right to exist on the lands whom their forefathers were born.

No, they don't. You don't have the right to live anywhere when you can't follow the basic, FAIR laws. Are you trying to convince the world that outside Israeli borders, human rights prosper more than from within?

From everything I've read from you, that seems to be your belief. If it's not you must not be able to put 2 and 2 together. Pity.

What is sick?
That's history. In 1939 when the Jews were first started to be kicked out their homes and forced in concentration camps, they became homeless. And right after the war was finished, they had no homes because the Nazis sold them to other people.

For that comparison to stack up . . . just . . . Diaspora. Check it out.

And with that fresh in their mind they make other peoples homeless inorder to regain a home. How did they not learn how it felt to be homeless? If someone hurts me in a certain way, I don't want to hurt other people in that certain way because I know how it feels.

You don't know shit. But that's okay, You'll get better.

---

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Does man fucking own earth or not? Debate me on it, if it's so up-in-the-air. If you can't don't fucking write it.

He's not debating that you fuckup, he's questioning the whole principale that God, as in the divine spirt, gave us earth to live, rather then us just evolving and blooming here.

But even the Palestinians claim that God gave them those lands.

These people have VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT perceptions of God. Holy shit.

Do you even know religions?
Islams bases itself straight of the Judeo Christian religion(Judaism and Christianity if you didn't know) and use them as a stable base, just as how Christians do with Judaism.

It's all the same god, the God of Abraham is the God of Christianity is the God of Islam. It's the God of Abraham, Isac and Jacob.

How so?

To use something that isn't factually proven for as a reason to own land and conquer it is, questionable to say the least.
.

Bullshit in the 1st degree. By that logic, every Jew in Israel that displaced a lazy "palestinian" is not only justified, but righteous!

Now, this brings to mind the forcing them into the Ghettoes and shooting at them part.

So what kind of government did Palestine have? I was under the impression there wasn't any government where Israel now stands . . . the same way nomadic Native Americans couldn't trouble themselves with a world larger than their herd of buffalo.

The Iriquios Leage.

No, they don't. You don't have the right to live anywhere when you can't follow the basic, FAIR laws. Are you trying to convince the world that outside Israeli borders, human rights prosper more than from within?

Does the end justify the means?

For that comparison to stack up . . . just . . . Diaspora. Check it out.

Do you even know what the Diaspora is? Because it seems you don't.

You don't know shit. But that's okay, You'll get better.

How about when you can learn how to read and comprehend someone's post, you can critique them.

Kay.

---

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Does man fucking own earth or not? Debate me on it, if it's so up-in-the-air. If you can't don't fucking write it.

He's not debating that you fuckup, he's questioning the whole principale that God, as in the divine spirt, gave us earth to live, rather then us just evolving and blooming here.

Oh you can argue that huh?
Thanks cockbag.

But even the Palestinians claim that God gave them those lands.

These people have VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT perceptions of God. Holy shit.

Do you even know religions?
Islams bases itself straight of the Judeo Christian religion(Judaism and Christianity if you didn't know) and use them as a stable base, just as how Christians do with Judaism.

No, research how Muhammad retook Mecca. That was anything but Christian.

Did I mention you're a cockbag?

It's all the same god, the God of Abraham is the God of Christianity is the God of Islam. It's the God of Abraham, Isac and Jacob.

Interpretted differently. They think God's will is something differnt than the Judeo-Christian belief. Christians recognize Trinity, the divineness of Jesus' life and "turning the other cheek", so to speak.

YOu are fucking retarded.

---

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Oh you can argue that huh?
Thanks cockbag.

I'm not arguing shit. I'm clarifying something for you. Because, by god you need it.

No, research how Muhammad retook Mecca. That was anything but Christian.

You mean like how the Crusaders took over Jerusalem.
I don't believe in Islam one way or another, I'm just stating the facts here.

Did I mention you're a cockbag?

Did I mention that you were an immature little brat that seems to think cockbag as somesort of insult and needs to constantly make fun of people to try and make your own self seem important.

Interpretted differently. They think God's will is something differnt than the Judeo-Christian belief. Christians recognize Trinity, the divineness of Jesus' life and "turning the other cheek", so to speak.

Christians interpret God differently for Christ's sake.

YOu are fucking retarded.

Of course, coming from the person that needs to use an Ad Hominem attacks to give wieght to a flawed argument.

---

At 4/30/07 07:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Oh you can argue that huh?
Thanks cockbag.

I'm not arguing shit. I'm clarifying something for you. Because, by god you need it.

Yep. Thanks.

No, research how Muhammad retook Mecca. That was anything but Christian.

You mean like how the Crusaders took over Jerusalem.
I don't believe in Islam one way or another, I'm just stating the facts here.

You shouldn't think your hot shit and post in threads you admittedly know jack shit about. I don't care about your piddly fuckin opinion, kiddo. Really. I don't.

Now you know.

Interpretted differently. They think God's will is something differnt than the Judeo-Christian belief. Christians recognize Trinity, the divineness of Jesus' life and "turning the other cheek", so to speak.

Christians interpret God differently for Christ's sake.

YOu are fucking retarded.

Of course, coming from the person that needs to use an Ad Hominem attacks to give wieght to a flawed argument.

You didn't present an argument. You learned a new word in school. You're old enough to know better.

---

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

:LOL BAGS

LOL COCKS
LOL COCKBAGS

AYS, f your look at any religion, you il find a genocide.. or two.... or 3..... or 12898123890..

---

At 4/30/07 07:51 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Yep. Thanks.

It's not a problem.
And I apologize for the insults.

You shouldn't think your hot shit and post in threads you admittedly know jack shit about. I don't care about your piddly fuckin opinion, kiddo. Really. I don't.

Then why do you reply. If you don't, care I mean. Because your showing enough care to take the time to reply.

You didn't present an argument. You learned a new word in school. You're old enough to know better.

So, are you done or are you just going to still cause a fuss.

Because, apparently you gave up on the argument and just tried to make me look bad.
Which isn't working well.

---

At 4/30/07 08:24 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:51 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Yep. Thanks.

It's not a problem.
And I apologize for the insults.

You shouldn't think your hot shit and post in threads you admittedly know jack shit about. I don't care about your piddly fuckin opinion, kiddo. Really. I don't.

Then why do you reply. If you don't, care I mean. Because your showing enough care to take the time to reply.

You weren't previously aware of my disdain for worthless posts.

My time is worth the wait between laundry. What's your excuse? WHat do you have invested in this thread? Were you so compelled to mention a non-point that you thought I wouldn't protect my e-rep?

Wow.

You didn't present an argument. You learned a new word in school. You're old enough to know better.

So, are you done or are you just going to still cause a fuss.

You're talking, but you aren't saying anything.

---

At 4/30/07 08:27 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 08:24 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:51 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

My time is worth the wait between laundry. What's your excuse? WHat do you have invested in this thread? Were you so compelled to mention a non-point that you thought I wouldn't protect my e-rep?

I really invest nothing in any of my threads. I try not to cary over personal squables or issues with me.

I'm trying to be the better man here and let this thing just go, because really your ideas have been beaten and falsified and the argument is done.

I'm just trying to do it with enough grace to leave at least both parties happy.

So really, it's been a great pleasure but, I think were done here.
Cheers.

---

At 4/29/07 05:56 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

In case you dont get it, you are the neo con here, not me.

My remark had to do with balancing out Iran. By attacking Iraq, we fucked up the balance of power.

Get it?

---

At 4/30/07 08:31 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 08:27 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 08:24 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:51 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 05:36 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 04:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 4/30/07 07:15 AM, fli wrote:

At 4/30/07 06:09 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

My time is worth the wait between laundry. What's your excuse? WHat do you have invested in this thread? Were you so compelled to mention a non-point that you thought I wouldn't protect my e-rep?

I really invest nothing in any of my threads. I try not to cary over personal squables or issues with me.

I'm trying to be the better man here and let this thing just go, because really your ideas have been beaten and falsified and the argument is done.

YOu claim the Gods are the same. They are. The prophets are not. You don't understand or aren't able to comprehend or are ignorant or are all three when it comes to knowledge of each respective religions prophets, and how their teachings impact the modern world.

I can be nice and friendly too, but that doesn't change the uselessness of every one of your replies to me.

I'm just trying to do it with enough grace to leave at least both parties happy.

So really, it's been a great pleasure but, I think were done here.
Cheers.

Cheers.

---

At 4/30/07 08:34 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 4/29/07 05:56 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

Get it?

We've been fucking the balance of the mid east since our inception of our country. Remember, the Iranian government is just a result from our own actions.

---

At 4/30/07 07:41 AM, AreYouSure wrote: Do you believe Israel is not a valid nation?

And why does that matter? But I guess you hadn't the sense to understand when I wrote: "Valid?"

Do I recognize them as a true nation?
I dunno.

It wouldn't matter because I still disagree what they did to create Isreal in 1948.

Does man fucking own earth or not? Debate me on it, if it's so up-in-the-air. If you can't don't fucking write it.

twiddling dicks... buzz, buzz, buzz--
The sound of a bee in a bonnet.

NO IT'S NOT FOR CHRISTS SAKE.

JUDAISM=/=ISLAM=/=AGNOSTICISM

These people have VERY FUCKING DIFFERENT perceptions of God. Holy shit.

Perceptions, maybe.
But it's still the same God that Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe. That's not even debatable, it's historical fact. The difference is in how they worship the same diety.

How so?

When I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+3=6, it doesn't mean that the value of "2" is invalid.

I'll wait till you take a few minutes and write a point that I makes sense--

Bullshit in the 1st degree. By that logic, every Jew in Israel that displaced a lazy "palestinian" is not only justified, but righteous!

More and more you're making less sense, while more and more you're being a big jerk. OKAY.

What logic did you get when I said that immigration is diffrent from conquering? Because I see no way how what I wrote about immigrants and people who take lands can lead up to the statement "every Jew that displaced a lazy Palestinian" is not only justified, but righteous."

WTF?
Talk about out of the blue...

So what kind of government did Palestine have? I was under the impression there wasn't any government where Israel now stands . . . the same way nomadic Native Americans couldn't trouble themselves with a world larger than their herd of buffalo.

What does it matter what Palestine had as a government? They governed themselves, and going to anywhere to establish a government isn't any excuse to take peoples lands.

What if some other peoples went to Isreal and said, "This government is for shit. We got something better." And then pushed all the Jews out of their homes, and filled them with strangers?

If you act indignant or think it would be wrong, then you're a hypocrite since this was the same course of action Isreal made in 1948.

And you can't see it that way because I sense you hate the Palestines.

Your sense of entitlement could only be allowed to fester in a society as coddling as ours. That's my opinion, fire and brimstone that all you want, I'm above it.

h'oooookay, man'g. Ser'sly. Maybe you heard that somewhere and thought it would be cool to quote it, but that didn't make sense.

My sense of entitlement will fester "rot" in a coddling "careing" society such as yours?
*eye rollie at the dumb kid*

Look, I don't feel "entitled" for anything. I simply don't agree what Isreal did to be Isreal in 1948.

No, they don't. You don't have the right to live anywhere when you can't follow the basic, FAIR laws. Are you trying to convince the world that outside Israeli borders, human rights prosper more than from within?

There's a beam in your eye.
And what fair laws did Isreal follow in 1948 when they kicked out the the Palestines to create their own home?

Look. It wasn't right what happened, and to justify it by saying that they're a Democracy or that the Palestines didn't know what to do with the land, or to say there wasn't human rights... it doesn't justify it.

Because there are other and more better ways to handle those problems. If there's a lack of human rights, the most obvious and most compassionate course of action is to aid the people to escape. Or to set a war to liberate them. Or whatever.

What I'm saying is that problems have their own sets of solutions, and creating Isreal wasn't the solution people had in mind when they were thinking about human abuse and what not. People are justifying the means in the end.

From everything I've read from you, that seems to be your belief. If it's not you must not be able to put 2 and 2 together. Pity.

You are so blinded with hate and ignorance because you can't see that the conflict is created by both sides. But Isreal certainly escalated the situation to greater heights by establishing a nation within a nation with force.

Yet I have the audacity to say that I don't believe that Isreal acted fairly in the way how they established their home. To question who gave the Promised Land. To say that God isn't a valid answer, and that Isreal were acting bad people when they kicked out Palestines out of their homes so they could create their own homes.

Look, I don't agree with either culture. It's obvious that both sides hate each other. It's also obvious that you really dislike me at this second, but what you don't see is that I'm a 3rd party.

I have the ability to see things differently because it's not effected by neither Jewish or Palestinian cultures.

I can empathasize on both sides. Especially with the Jews, because I have read tons of Holocaust literature. 12 books, and I still got one more left infact. That's not including a phonebook size of Jewish essays.

So while you may think that I'm empathsizing the Palestinian side, that I am some how a proponent against the Jews, let me say that I'm not.

But what I don't agree is the establishment of Isreal. It was taken from other peoples in order to create it.

And for me, that's unfair. And to say otherwise would be very untrue.
You say that humanity can conquer lands. That's fine, but just wait till it's your turn and let's see how it feels.

For that comparison to stack up . . . just . . . Diaspora. Check it out.

*eye rollie*
Get over yourself. This question started, after all, in a Holocaust Literature class.

Stop acting like pussies. It's a sensitive subject, of course, but I'm talking about it in a serious manner. If you guys are just overtly sensitive pussies, I lament you because if I simply talked about it and you guys are in this tight of a panty-bunch then I imagine that it will be 100X worse when you guys actually face a guy who is a jerk about the Holocaust.

You don't know shit. But that's okay, You'll get better.

C'est la vie, mon cheri...

---

Life is too short to stress online.

I'm sorry for appearing overly aggressive and anti-social.

Personally, I believe the United States should temporarily sever affiliation with Israel and see how the cookie crumbles.

I believe once our generation should view firsthand how raw war really is when government's can't placate their people and prevent them from making life for everyone over there a living hell.

If the Aztecs were to repopulate central america and "conquer" using only immigration tactics (in a democratic government environment), would Spain have a valid claim to boot them out again?

That's how I see Israel/surrounding area, only with the added tension of the land having momumental historical significance.

What exactly was "wrong" with setting up a STABLE government, one that doesn't actively support terror tactics? The other natives, the non-jews may participate and function in Israel without fear for their lives simply because of their religion. The same cannot be said for the regions surrounding Israel.

That reason alone should have some value, right? Religious rule, be it Shar'ia or Holy Roman, essentially ignores modern human rights. I cannot support a populace who ignores human rights.

Both people have a claim to the land in Israel, but it is governed, thankfully, by an institution willing to uphold human rights instead of destroying them.

Damn, it's a warzone over there, it has been since the inception of Islam.

I really, really like how StephanosGnomon put it, "The Jews had been dispersed throughout the world with no nation of their own for hundreds and hundreds of years, and it just so happened that the opportunity to reclaim their ancient homeland came as a direct result of the Nazi's failed attempt at eradicating them from the face of the planet."

That's all I've got to opine. I feel my position is stronger and more beneficial than yours.

---

At 5/1/07 12:18 AM, AreYouSure wrote: Life is too short to stress online.

Sing it, brother--

I'm sorry for appearing overly aggressive and anti-social.

I'm glad that you can say that. It takes a real man (or girl, not sure with your lack of profile) to admit things, especially if it's saying, "I'm sorry." I know I'm talking something sensitive and I'm trying to show sensitivity while disagreeing at the same time.

It takes a lot to show self control. I feel very strongly about illegal immigrant issues, mostly because my parents were illegal immigrants, and so sometimes when I encounter a jerk... it takes a ton of patience. And sometimes I'm not successful at biting my tongue just in time too stop the words.

So yeah-- when you feel certain things passionately, then sometimes things can get bitter and out of hand. So I admire you a lot right now for recognizing that you were upset.

I'll still believe what happened in 1948 was not correct, but I will be particularily sensitive to Jewish readers since I'm talking about things such as God, and most importantly, a sense of home.

If the Aztecs were to repopulate central america and "conquer" using only immigration tactics (in a democratic government environment), would Spain have a valid claim to boot them out again?

But there aren't Aztecs anymore. We have indigenous populations left, of course. But they call themselves by seperate names.

But there are Chicanos who believe that this land is stolen land. I believe this, especially when we deeply analyze the Mexican American War and the Alamo. Here we have Americans who believe in the Manfiest Destiny-- to reach, as the anthem goes, "From sea to shining sea."

This does not mean, and I'm just saying this because I know certain users may view this as some kind of radical doctorine advocating to re-claim the southwest and etc, that I believe we should return these lands. All I believe was that it was wrong for Americans to start the Mexican American war in order to take all those states with Spanish names.

This is why I disagree with Isreal's course of action. The whole premise of a "Promised Land" reminds me of a middle eastern version of Manifest Destiny.

But I agree, both sides have their problems. I know that Palestine isn't particularly "nice" with human rights and that Isreal has a better and compassionate view on these things. Kudos for them. I particularly agree that their stances on gays (which I am), while not the best, is altogether much more compassionate. Heck, it's better to be gay in Isreal than probably other parts of the Middle East where I would be either hanged, beaten, or decapitated to death. At most, they would censor a gay parade or whatever.

But that's a different issue for me.
And disagreeing with the meathods to the foundation of Isreal doesn't mean that I invalidate whatever they have done or will do. Those other issues I have to take individually and give a different response.

What exactly was "wrong" with setting up a STABLE government, one that doesn't actively support terror tactics? The other natives, the non-jews may participate and function in Israel without fear for their lives simply because of their religion. The same cannot be said for the regions surrounding Israel.

It's just that to create Isreal a piece of land had to be taken, and I don't like how people use euphemisms. This was what happened in my Holocaust literature class. Students were saying, "Isreal was given the land as a present."

It's like what many US history books, when they go beyond the dinky two paragraph text of the Annexation of Texas, do instead telling it more bluntly. I mean, "Annexation of Texas" sounds a whole lot better than "The Taking of Texas." (Or whatever.)

That reason alone should have some value, right? Religious rule, be it Shar'ia or Holy Roman, essentially ignores modern human rights. I cannot support a populace who ignores human rights.

Both people have a claim to the land in Israel, but it is governed, thankfully, by an institution willing to uphold human rights instead of destroying them.

That I can agree. The middle east needs human rights and so many things to make them a little bit more compassionate and peaceful.

But what I don't support is the justifying the means. The way of conduct to reach goals is impotant. If we are going to liberate people because they're oppressed, then let's make sure that our intentions are very clear and well proclaimed. Because if they aren't-- then war and violence is pointless.

Damn, it's a warzone over there, it has been since the inception of Islam.

I really, really like how StephanosGnomon put it, "The Jews had been dispersed throughout the world with no nation of their own for hundreds and hundreds of years, and it just so happened that the opportunity to reclaim their ancient homeland came as a direct result of the Nazi's failed attempt at eradicating them from the face of the planet."

But the Jews had no real home to begin with. Jews have, ever since Abraham left his home to do what he believed to be God's bidding, never had a ground to stay put.

In a mythological and literary sense, we can see that Jews have always struggled with being nomads or land owners. It's an ancient struggle between Isreal and their Islamic brother nations. It's seems to be a literary theme and part of the whole Jewish phyce: Cain and Abel. Isaac and Ismeal. Jacob and Esau.

Brothers struggling for the birthright of land. Despite the fact that they are brothers from the same vine and under the same God. And always, if we are talking in the mythos sense, the Jewish brother either loses or takes the birthright of land by trickery. (Or even by violence, as was the case of Cain.)

The Nation of Isreal exists and it is valid. But it exists how it has existed for centuries: without a true ruler (save for God's word and his various prophets) and not with a true land. It's an ever moving nation settled all over the world, and as such-- it never had a real claim to land albiet it's called a Promised Land.

The Jew's home was where ever they were born in whatever various part of the world: Germany, Poland, Vienna, Estonia, Russia, etc-- If they ever needed a reason to fight, they should have fought the people who bought their property and stole their wealth. They should have taken the fight with Germany, Poland, and the rest where they were born. Not to the Middle East where other peoples who were born there. Not in someone else's home.

That's all I've got to opine. I feel my position is stronger and more beneficial than yours.

Beneficial.
Mmmm-- that maybe so.

But I think my opine is rawfully truthful.