Jesus where have you been? Israel is untouchable in America and they're not exactly an obscure and unimportant country. I can understand feeling sympathetic for the civilians but treating it like Israel is more hated than Palestine on the national stage is ignorant. I think you're being far too sympathetic towards Israel. The violence there is completely self-perpetuating and while I have no doubt that there were attacks that weren't presupposed by another attack I also have no doubt that that can be said of both sides. No one is more right or more wrong in this conflict.

On the subject of ignorant...Proggy you know you're stuff on this but after World War II you're treating it like the Jews had nowhere to go and Israel had a bunch of empty land. That's not true. Palestine lost half its land to the UN and then Israel turns around and occupied even more then just that half. 750,000 people were kicked out in 1948. Palestinians have roots in Israel too and unlike the Jews at that time they didn't have anywhere else to go. They could've made new lives in America or any other countries. They were even offered unpopulated land in Uganda. I believe the situation was handed horribly initially by the UN (on pretty much every front) but unfortunately we can't go back and deal with the situation differently.

Basically what I'm trying to say is the middle east is a clusterfuck and the blame lies everywhere and if you go into who started what, who was victimized, who did badly you'll end up pointing your fingers in every single direction.

American appeasement of Israeli atrocities.

Obama...4 more years?

It's a well established historical fact, you're the one claiming another number, thus the burden of proof is on you.

I realize the situation was horribly and unfairly mishandled but it didn't have to be that way. There's room for both groups and I think it's incredibly stupid how Israel has tried to take more land than they were originally given but I can't stress enough how the conflict doesn't come from lack of land.
So yeah, I agree with just about everything you've said here. But remember, there's plenty of room in Israel for both groups geographically, sadly that doesn't seem to be the case ideologically.
Agreed, that's what I've been trying to say all along.

Actually you brought up the 6 million specifically. He made a negative claim. His claim was "The amount of people is NOT [number]" to which your counterclaim was "The amount of people IS [number]" which puts the burden of proof on you. Get to citing sources.

Also, I might be a bit of an insensitive creep for this stance but I really don't care about the middle east. They could all die and the world would probably be a better place for it.

I wasn't saying there was a limited space; it's the fact people were removed from their homes. Theoretically speaking I bet if you had placed the Jewish community in an unpopulated large area and declared it is own country I doubt the Palestinian people would have such hatred for Israel and vice versa. (Please note I'm not taking into account religious fanatics, theological differences and how everyone wants Jerusalem.)

They used to say that a neo-con with a liberal who'd been mugged by reality.

I wouldn't call myself a neo-con, but I think i've been roughed up a little.

I'm not sure why the U.S. doesn't have a more isolationist approach to the whole debacle. During the presidental campiagn in the U.S., when asked about Darfur, John McCain said he thought we ought to engage in economic sanctions, not buying from that country and deinvesting in its companies and any that do business with the Sudan. Why we don't have a similar position here, I can't understand.

The other thing thats always confused the hell out of me about this situation is why both political parties are so stalwart on defending Isreal and why common people seem to think its an issue. One question that was asked to Joe the Plumber was "Do you agree with me that a vote for Barrack Obama is a vote for the death of Isreal?"

Forget the logic there, I'd like to know why he was concerned. Isn't a vote for John McCain a vote for the death of Iran? Why don't we care there?

Ethan had mentioned this was a war over a piece of fiction. My assumption is that he meant Holy texts, but I'd ask the same question replacing "fiction" with "policy." That is to say, policies made in the 40's should have as much bearing as, well, every thing else we did in teh 40's, little to none.

I'd also argue that Religion has little to do with it. Its the proclamation, and the name in which each side invokes, but it had to do with gentrification. Bascially people were thrown out of their homes, and so they blame the other guy, but they need a reason to do so. So they go with religion. (I don't think its that haphazard but you get the idea).

The U.S. and the rest of the Western Nations can do whatever the hell they want, this will be solved only when the nations involved have decided its gone too far. The issue I beleive their having is the same ones we have here on different matters. Old folks set in their ways aren't going to budge. So let them die. I'm not happy about innocent people dying but unless forign armies go in their and force politicians to see dead bodies up close, not much will change.

We have to wait for a child who's 6 siblings died in a bombing to get elected, and then hope he has the balls to challenge the electorate like LBJ did in the south.

Yeah I'm sorry i didn't read this first, but this is exactly right. The Taliban didn't even have a credible existance when they started. Even the Afghans, who might be one of the more impovershed people on earth, still knew these guys were a bulb short of a candelabra.

If we had made Isreal on the border of North/South Dakota, only the Protestants would care.

Your logic is flawed, but OK, here's a source:

The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust - Google Book Search

Your go.