Blarman, All that is true, and the point remains that the non-owner Allies created Israel on land that they didn't own and couldn't control. They ignored the claims by Arabs who supported the Allied cause and fought alongside the troops from England, Australia, and US. Would there have been invasions by all those Arab countries if the state of Israel had been created in Guam or Puerto Rico or BVI/USVI, for example?
I agree completely that historically the claims on the mideast region are varied based on might makes right (and imo irrational religious beliefs in holy ground.) The founders of the US wisely tried to keep religion separate from actions of state. The "claim" issue does not justify the idiotic action that has and will continue to cause animosity to the US in the region. (Yes, there have also been more recent idiotic acts by the US that add to the animosity.)

Saw it a while ago (years now)... I actually thought it was kinda cute... Especially the prospect of Oldman attempting to bring Buddhism to Judea. And the reaction of those In the room to this.

Brings up a point - especially (and sadly) evident here - It just shows what happens when the touch of true divinity touches the inner essence of humanity... rather than becoming one, loving all, forgiving all, the knowledge and thereby self-righteousness sparks anger, retribution, and violence (and thumbs down). They become all knowing, all seeing, all demanding, all condemning... because *my* way is the *only* way... and there must be NO tolerance for ANY OTHER THOUGHT!

Iran (later called "The Bridge of Victory") supported the Allies in WW2 as did almost all the countries in the region. Iraq supported Allies, had a coup which supported Axis but was overthrown and then supported Allies again. Lebanon, Syria, and Morrocco were French controlled so when france surrendered so did they, but were liberated by Allies (including Arab fighters) later.

Not that you asked, but if you want an interesting take on that bit of history, watch a low budget film, "The Man From the Earth" (2006 or so)

Ann Coulter is a provocateur of the religious Right. (See the cross on her necklace.)

As the world's unrest grows, we will see more and more refugees. Not all refugees are freeloaders wanting to cash in on the U.S.'s misguided welfare system. Many are decent people willing to work hard to earn their way.

Imagine the desperate state of parents willing to send their children out to save them. Jews did the same with their children during the Holocaust. Sending the Hispanic kids back could be a death sentence. My family were refugees of WWII, running for our lives as American and British bombs blanketed Europe. We were some of the lucky ones to survive.

Eventually we immigrated to the U.S. and became naturalized citizens. Even then, decades ago, there were bigoted people who would say things like "why don't you go back where you came from", not realizing there was nowhere to go back to once conquerors take over one's homeland.

It would be far better for U.S. policy not to create drug wars and nation-size prisons and brutal sanctions to keep people from supporting themselves through free trade in an atmosphere of peace. Government hand-outs, no. Voluntary (individual) charity, yes. We should all be able to hire anyone who wants a job, native or alien.

Good fences make good neighbors. But building barbaric walls is a dreadful idea. Think of the Berlin wall. Such wounds take a long time to heal. Those who want to keep immigrants out, because immigrants might horn in on the goodies the natives have, are operating on the most primitive level of animal territorialism. All such disasters are a result of forgetting the second part of the equation: "... nor ask another to live for mine."

You're an idiot.
Israel's so-called apartheid is rather strange since at least a third of its citizenry are Muslim, and Muslims are in the Knesset which is their congress. In the heat of battle, they give advance warning to the people living in an area about to be attacked. Even the USA doesn't do that. The fact is, you don't have a problem with Israel, you have a problem with Jews. I guess I shouldn't recriminate you, as the Gulch already gave you a -11, so I probably shouldn't have opened up your little hate-O-gram.

A LOT of people have claimed that little chunk of the Eastern Mediterranean for their own over the millennia. I remember this story about some Roman Prelate - I felt bad for him, actually - who got stuck governing a real tinder box - maybe he pissed off somebody in Rome, or drew the short straw for postings, or something - and ended up getting written (in an unfavorable light) into one of the most famous history books of all time for doing his job - as he had done for years, trying to keep the peace in a non-peaceful part of the world, and dispensing Roman justice - and wanting to get it over with and go back home. Just as others had done before and after him.

While the 3 who were nailed and hung on Golgotha on that fateful day are the ones we all know and remember, how many others were put up there on that hill and nailed to the wood before and after, by not just Pilate but the other Governors there trying to quell the tinderbox... The actions he took weren't some "special, one time only" gig, it happened all the time. And had there not been a band of chroniclers there to record it, the story of this one "radical" would have been as lost as most people who were crucified on Golgotha. (Other than the 3 on the hill that day, can you name ANYONE else who met their end on a cross on Golgotha? I know I can't...)

I'm just musing here, however... I wonder if Christ had been born in, say, the province of Britannia rather than the province of Judea, and a similar uproar came about, whether Aulus Platius (the Roman Prelate in Britain at about the same time) would have been written about as much as Pontius Pilatus.

Or better... what if Pilate had said, "I declare today is a "gift of the Emperor" and there will be no punishment meted out, further, I shall declare that ALL those condemned in holding are hereby pardoned and freed"... Think of the impact on history *that* would have had... ;-)

I don't know what history books you've been reading, but the Arabs were on Hitler's side, and not our allies.

Coulter solved the problem of the border in one minute with a few sentences.

I remember the story from Sunday School... but I'm also talking physiology. And tribal relations. And genetics. Even relating to the Sariah/Hagar story - they're the same tribal people.

And whether they're Jewish or Islam or Christian or even follow the ancient Roman religious rites they're all descendants of the same GENETIC STOCK, e.g. the same peoples. Regardless of one familial split some 4000 years ago. Or some prosthetylization effort some 1300 years ago.

The descendants of those living on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean some 10,000+ (or if you insist, 5300 years ago) have the same roots. Regardless of some political subdividing that's been going on there for some 2000+ years.

The Arabs are descendants primarily from Abraham's first son Ishmael. The Israelites are descendants from Abraham's second son, Isaac.

The primary conflict arose when because of jealousy between Isaac's mother, Sariah, (Abraham's wife) and Ishmael's mother, Hagar (Sariah's handmaiden and concubine to Abraham), Ishmael and his mother were sent away. According to tradition, the birthright passed to the first son of the first wife, so Isaac - regardless being the younger of the two - was the birthright son and heir. To Abraham, the Lord promised the land of Canaan (which includes modern day Israel) as a possession. However, the descendants of Ishmael grew into a mighty nation of their own and ignored Isaac's claim. Then you also have to throw in Jacob (son of Isaac) and his twin brother Esau - from which another mighty nation was born.

Has there been some intermingling between the two? Even the Bible admits this to be the case, but states very clearly that it is religion that truly separates them. It should also be noted that the Jewish faith dates back at least to Abraham. Both Ishmael and Esau forsook that religion and went their own ways.

It should also be noted that the vast majority of "Arabs" no longer existed after about 800 AD, as they had been forcibly converted to Islam by Mohammed and his followers, who both for ideological and heritage reasons have adopted a hate for those of Israelitish descent.

Uh, I think you mean WW I, and during war, land frequently changes hands. In this case, the British had been fighting the Turks/Ottomans. See "Lawrence of Arabia" for more. Britain took the territory in 1917 just as colonialism was beginning to ebb, and then used it in 1945 via the UN to create the new Jewish State of Israel. The British even stationed troops there for the first three years as the nation of Israel was getting started to promote the peace. This was 1945 (right after WW II) and the British had forces all over the Middle East in power.

Then the British left. Two months later, Israel got invaded by Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt in which they survived only by a miracle. In 1967, the Arabs tried again, and again, Israel survived by a thread.

I would also point to the ENTIRE history of that part of the world as to claims of ownership, as it has gone back and forth due to military conquest for thousands of years. Most of the "claims" you are referring to are very recent in nature and mask the true nature of the conflict: two warring religions who both believe that specific site to be holy ground to them.

My sentiments also.

Somebody forget that the Israelites *are* an Arabic tribe? I know it's not a popular sentiment because, after intermarrying with fairer-skinned races they look more European than their Palestinian neighbors, and a lot of those don't like to look at their darker-skinned co-inhabitors of the area and say "our roots are the same"...but they are. A=A.

You can't say "It belonged to the Israelites long before the Arabs had any claim to it" because, gasp, they are (other than religious differences and ethnic intermixing with "outsiders" by the Israelites) the same peoples. They are of the same ethno-geographical stock, all have the same geographical "roots".