Vintage, I have to respond to your argument in pieces:
Arabs prefer blowing themselves up with civilians as their targets, Israelis hunt down specific terrorist factions.
The Israelis also happen to kill hundreds of Palestinians civilians in their hunt for terrorists. Sharon values Palestinian lives to the same extent that Arafat values Israeli lives.
Thankfully, there are people on both sides (including Palestinians) who think that fighting is stupid and both sides are wrong to kill and should just stop.
Arabs fight as networks of terrorists outside of governmental approval, Israelis fight under their military with full government approval. That should tell you right there that their claim is not reasonable.
That logic is, excuse me, bullsh*t. By that logic, since the American revolutionaries fought without government approval (they didn't have a government), and the British fought under their military with full government approval, the American's claim wasn't reasonable.
I know you mean well, but that has no relevency whatsoever. Islam originated from a man's own conception of Judeo-Christianity. You falsely assume I was comparing the claims of Christians and Muslims. Jews have been around much, much longer than Muslims. About 2500 years longer! Their land was Jerusalem and its surrounding lands. Christianity had been around 570 years before Islam.
Just as Christianity originated from a man's own conception of Judeism and Judeism originated from a man's own conception of God. You were comparing the claims of Jews and Muslims. Each has owned the land, at different times, for over 1000 years. It's safe to say that both have a great deal of history there.
Now, the regions around "Israel" are controlled by Muslim Arabs who attack the Jews solely out of spite for the Jewish faith. They already have most of the land originally owned by Israel, but that hasn't kept them from unprovoked attacks.
They attack it out of a desire for their land!!! Your entire case here is based upon a contradiction. I'll lay it out for you:
First, you say that the Israelis have a right to the land because they were there first (even tho the Arabs had it for 1000+ years).
Second, you say that the Arabs claims to the land aren't valid because:
"Think about how Americans got their land. They moved into lands occupied by the Indians. In a perfect world, things like that shouldn't happen, but that does not mean we should give all the land back."
So, which is it? Are historical claims valid or not? How about I use your own statement about America:
"Think about how Palestinians got their land. They moved into lands occupied by the Jews. In a perfect world, things like that shouldn't happen, but that does not mean they should give all the land back."
How bout I give another analogy:
The Indians lived in America for thousands of years. Then, one day, the Americans came over and took it from them. The Americans live in the land for a few hundred years. At this point, all of Europe decides to take Minnesota and give it to the Indians. Without consenting with America. Now, whose claim to the land is valid, the Indians or the native Minnesotans?
Who thinks the Dems can villify Bush for creating jobs?
I'm sure Karl Rove can teach them how to use good things against candidates