The question is as equally fair and oblivious to demonstrated feelings. I do not want to dig up anyones personal history, but you were around and active at wotmania long enough to know how STUPID your statement was, even by the usual standard.

Such is the wonderful nature of the eternal Arab vs. Israeli struggle (even though, absent genetic studies, there is good reason to believe Palestinians are more Hebrew than anything else:) Each sides cheerleaders take any and all criticism as endorsing the other. Too bad the behavior of BOTH makes them unworthy of any support. My own sympathies are largely with Israel, because I think it largely right on principle, but the WAY its government typically presses its case is impossible to justify—Palestinian leaders are simply just as bad or worse. Even most cheerleaders rarely argue FOR any particular act of their preferred side, only AGAINST the others latest atrocity; the first is a tremendous challenge, but the second merely a matter of the latest Yahoo! news update.

By the Tanakhs millennia-old rationale for Israel first seizing Canaan and committing genocide against the natives (i.e. that those natives had so long and so thoroughly defiled themselves AND the land that they forfeited all right to it) neither side is entitled to any claim on Canaan (for lack of a better unbiased term.) By my general rule for Mideast conflicts, I strongly advocate leaving the folks who invented genocide about the same time as civilization to decide their preference among themselves, while we stay as far away from it as possible: The only thing anyone ever got from sticking their hand in that interminable meatgrinder was the privilege of drawing back a bloody nub and getting all blame for the Mideast being as screwed up and violent as when they got there.