1. Show me the passage in the New Testament that lays claim to the land of Israel for Christianity. Jesus never makes claim to land, but rather the kingdom of heaven. He explicitly states his is not an earthly kingdom. Land theology really only belongs to two of the three Abrahamic faiths, and Islam appropriated a good degree of the idea from Judaism. Land theology only ever became important once Christians were powerful enough to conquer. You're confusing military power with scripture.

That said, even if the right is not given theologically why is a right of return for a people expelled 2000 years ago wrong? Is there a time limit for returning? If so, why can't Israel just stall until Palestinians lose all claim to their land?

2. Russian Jews immigrating to Israel didn't result in anyone getting SENT to Gaza. Displacement can occur in the West Bank, though.

As for Israel selling arms to Georgia, Georgia imported arms from many nations friendly with the US, Israel being one of those friends. Russian Jews weren't leaving Russia because Russia was such a great place to be a Jew. My ancestors are proof of that. You seem to think that all those Russian Jews make Israel have great ties with Russia. Not so. It's not like all those Jews left Russia because Russia was friendly with Israel, then Israel switched sides and backed Georgia.

Should we be focusing more on the issues?

Israel is actually a bit larger than New Jersey

Size Comparison Map of Israel and New Jersey

But four hours across and eight hours long? Uh, no. 250 miles north to south or so. Maybe 100 miles across at its widest point.

Jus' sayin'

Andy Rooney is on 60 Minutes. Keith and Chemda are on Keith and The Girl. Where, evidently, "Keith and his girlfriend talk shit." I'm guessing 60 Minutes purports to have a little bit more journalistic intent. What's more, Rooney prepares his segments, while political topics on KATG frequently come up spontaneously.

I've been looking through this thread, Mr. DaveNJ, and you seem to have ignored my post in order to go pick on weaker arguments. Are we having a serious discussion, or a Push DaveNJ's Agenda silly time? You're continuing with your argument, despite the fact that I pointed out flagrant flaws in your reasoning. There's more you're adding the pile, but I don't see a point in continuing if you're just going to be a rigid robot that defeats what it can, and side-steps what it can't.

For those who care, here's a good backgrounder on the whole damn mess over there. It all started with the damned Balfour Declaration. In fact, most of the conflicts in that part of the world date back to that document and other 'solutions' the British provided as they slowly pulled back from their Empire.

- India-Pakistan-Kashmir
- Israel-Palestine
- Iraq-Iran and the Sunni-Shia issue

History of the Palestine Problem

Being in the land where your people can make a direct provable claim to and then being chased out by people who claim your land because they share a common faith with people who lived there before any modern land rights were established is hard to stomach. I think that Israel has a right to exist but they need to coexist with Palestine and recognize that any historical claims to the land aren't really going to hold water. Showing up and claiming occupied land as your own and then acting indignant is not a smart plan of action.

How does getting chased out of one place give you the right to chase someone else out of another place. If the Jewish people that were escaping tyranny wanted to claim their holy land as a safe haven, they need to play ball with the current occupants and not negotiate with Britain to eject the current occupants.

Historical land rights are very rarely recognized, especially in such a contested area. People who fought in the crusades' descendants could start showing up claiming land rights to big hunks of Israel. Land rights before that are more conjecture than real claims. Palestine was a well established nation long before WWII, but Britain colonized it, just like everything else, and decided to make decisions to favor the west instead of the current inhabitants. I really believe that after the holocaust the western world (specifically europe) was in shambles and already ramping up for the cold war, they had never seen such an atrocity committed against a people on such a scale and when it was over they offered to put them anywhere they wanted without really giving enough thought about long term problems and better solutions.

This is good. Both sides need to want peace. Israel wants the land and position they currently have with no static from Hamas. Palestine wants Israel to give them back most of Israel. Neither one is really getting anywhere good.

Two things: We absolutely lob money at them, they have one of the most sophisticated armies in the middle east and they use it to great effect.
America funds lots of shit heads, that doesn't mean we should give Israel an insurmountable military edge over Palestine.

So - if I happened to share religious beliefs with Native Americans, I should be able to go to Manhattan and take it over because, after all, my 'people' were there first. Genius.

That's gotta be the best freakin' analogy I've ever come up with!

Well you and a lot of people with similar flimsy claims would have to get chased out of New Jersey and show up in Manhattan and the government of Canada would have to help you claim sovereignty.

Works for me. And I get to do shrooms too! Bonus

No, I'd prefer if you focused on comedy :eek: