WOW Yahudi,

The land you refereeing to is the West Bank, and guess what it will be Palestine some day. deal.

Duke,

You're desperation is very evident. I don't care what Jews have claimed. It's not binding and simply serves the interests of other Jews. Claim whatever you want, and see what that gets you. Control of territories throughout the world continually changes. You wanna call the West Bank by it historical name that's fine. Do you call all countries by their historical names or just those that suggest Jewish ownership? Where is it written that the name of a specific place must stay the same?

<You really believe all of the propganda shyte the liberal acedemia is spreading.
the land you are refering to is called Judea and Samaria. Jews have claimed that land for 3000 years, we have never dropped that claim.>

Hey guess what, so have Arabs.

Adam,

Of course you won't condemn them. I never for one second believed you would.

You claiming that you'll condemn Israel when it's warranted is hysterical. It's been warranted and you have chosen to make excuses.

If an act is wrong it is irrelevant who the perpetrator is and the fact that someone else is guilty of committing a crime is not justification for you to commit a similar or even a lesser crime. It's still a crime, and there are still victims. If a Muslim country treats Jews poorly, that is not an acceptable excuse for Jews to treat Muslims with contempt. That promotes further aggression.

Your dismissal of my comment that the occupation has caused unspeakable hardship, that I am grossly exaggerating is very disturbing. You are choosing to hide your head in the sand and that is very unfortunate. The examples that you posted in response to my comment are not evidence of an absence of hardship based on the occupation. The fact that there is worse hardship makes there situation okay?? Not in my eyes. In one sentence you laugh at me for saying that they experience unspeakable hardship and then you say that they are experiencing serious hardship. You are making NO sense at all.

Whether or not the Palestinians are suffering the most of anyone in the world does not justify the perpetuation of their current hardships.

<Except Israel doesn't exist in a vacuum. If the Muslims treated Jews as equals, I wouldn't see a need for any blockades or roadblocks. I wouldn't see a need for Israel at all.>

Except that BEFORE the Intifadas, there were roadblocks and checkpoints. Surely not anywhere near as many, but there were still these restrictions. Restrictions that to some degree CAUSED the Intifadas, right?

<<"If Israel is the 'best' that it can be, if they did all that most of you want them to do - there'd be untold dead Israelis. ">>

<Unfounded speculation and assumption.>

Yeah, kind of like what happened when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, right? Kinda like the difference in attacks in Israel between when there was a wall around much of the West Bank and no wall, right? Kinda like that, you mean? Kinda like how before Israel went into Gaza last year, there were over 7K rockets shot from Gaza into Israel... If they had done something about the FIRST rocket, there'd not have been 7K more... If Israel was as fair as you wanted them to be, then this fairness would be taken as weakness, and that weakness would assuridly result in attacks. That you don't agree with this shows how ridiculous your decision-making process is, and how everything that you say is obviously very questionable.

<Too bad that you don't have the common consideration to call them Palestinians.>

Too bad that you're so immature that you NEED to find something to whine about. I spell the word wrong, I type it a lot, Pals THEMSELVES and their pals use "Pals", as in the website 'palsolidarity.com'... I write "Dems" for 'Democrats' - does that mean that I "don't have the common consideration to all them" Democrats?

Stop reacting and start thinking.

<This not too subtle slight against them>

Sure - if you WANT it to be a slight against them. That it's NOT is not relevant, 'eh? Is it ALSO a "not too subtle slight against" Demcrats, too?

<If people identify themselves as Palestinians a few more key strokes shouldn't be too much of a task for you. It's a clear insult on your part.>

Laughable. You WANT it to be a "clear insult", so to you it is a "clear insult", just like so many of your beliefs. You confuse what you WANT to be true and what IS true. This situation with the "Pal" nonsense is SUCH a clear-cut example of this issue that you have. It leads me to wonder what other situations are like this in your life, but in reality, there's no actual issue... You're wrong, but you've spent so much time invested in saying that you're right that you can't POSSIBLY back off...

<Here's a lesson for you....instead of saying that leaving Lebanon was good, look at what occurred in Lebanon due to the invasion.>

Wanna discuss that? Please do. Start a thread. But, that's a different issue altogether. Those are two different issues, are they not?

<That is your flaw, you think that it doesn't matter what happened in Lebanon, that leaving is all that should be mentioned.>

Now you're behaving unintelligently and thoughtlessly. I NEVER said that "it doesn't matter what happened in Lebanon". I am using ONE ISSUE of that whole mess in a SPECIFIC CONTEXT. Wanna talk about the macro view of Lebanon? Let's do it. Start a fucking thread - but to whine, to create these strawmen? Ridiculous.

<The U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, does that mean that they did something good?>

In the context of leaving? Well, there are 500 page books about that, so you'll have to figure out what aspect of their leaving you want to discuss. In the SPECIFIC context of America leaving Viet Nam to the Vietnamese, it was a good thing, right? The Vietnamese wanted them out, they had no right to be there in the first place, so they left. That's a good thing. Some of the results? Nuance, Sheik. You'll have to start to learn to see not just the picture that you want, but what the picture actually LOOKS LIKE.

<Leaving Gaza after causing unspeakable destruction doesn't make Israel into the good guy.>

When they left Gaza in '05, there was NOT "unspeakable destruction".

<Who said anything about the tunnels in Gaza?>

That was an example of Israel not being a 'good guy' for good reason.