drumsicle

His basic thesis seems to be that the Jews have no claim to the land other than a bogus religious one -- Zionism.

But Zionism is no longer the issue and hasn't been the issue since Israel became a state.

Let's even say he is right and that Zionism is a bunch of misguided hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

It doesn't matter.

They still have a completely legitimate claim to the land. It is the only claim that anybody anywhere has to any land. It is that they are there. They ARE there. They are not moving in and trying to take over. They already did that and if you were opposed, the time to stop it was then. Now it is spilled milk.

That doesn't mean that the Palestinians or and/or other Arabs, or anybody else for that matter, can't TRY to conquer that piece of land and keep it for themselves. They can and in a limited way they are.

And that's where we've stood for over fifty years with this. The Israelis are holding the hill and the Palestinians are trying to take the hill.

Now Labret doesn't like the way they took the land from the Brits. Fine, but it doesn't mean that they aren't there now, just the same. THEY ARE. Did he like the way the Brits took the same land from the Ottoman Turks? Who gives a fuck?

Truthfully, I don't see that he really has much of a thesis. His thesis seems to be that he doesn't like the way the Jews laid claim to the land, THEREFORE, THEY CAN'T HAVE IT. Where is the thesis? So after the Israelis apologize to Labret for offending his sensibilities, they will go right on defending that little piece of land they call home.

As to the only other point I can seem to find in his anti-Israel rants, that the Jews are a group of genocidal maniacs posing as victims -- 1. He can't possibly think that Jews have some kind of monopoly on killing in the name of religion. 2. They hardly have a monopoly on victim status either. 3. It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel anyway.