Bob, you ignorant slut

Putin invaded Crimea before Trump, true, and we eventually responded with harsh sanctions under Obama/Biden (not as harsh as now, we had less support). Trump’s people, before taking office, were on tape promising to remove any sanctions as soon as he took office, a crime btw and what Flynn went down for….then he recognized Russian Crimea halting any further international response.
Oh, and let’s not forget withholding military aid as they were being invaded to blackmail the Ukrainians into making up lies about and fake investigations into Biden.

It’s utterly asinine to pretend Putin wouldn’t expect the go ahead from Trump, who is cheerleading him on as we speak, offering high praise for the genius invasion, and have his full cooperation in blocking NATO from responding. Trump never once opposed or contradicted Putin. Not a bit surprising it’s your position. You are so gullible…and ignorant.

Putin DID invade Ukraine under Trump you moron. His forces were already in the Provence/states he declared independent, and have been for years. It was a smaller force, not full scale invasion, but his military was present and controlled the areas.
He’s escalating now, he says, because NATO is being strengthened (thanks largely to Biden, despite Trump wanting out of NATO) and he’s scared shitless that Ukraine will join and get help crushing the Russia backed separatists, quickly followed by other ex soviet satellites.

Putin is pausing that escalation now because of the strong response from Biden and our NATO allies.

How’re Trump’s criminal charges and civil cases doing? LMFAHS!!!

@newtboy
I admit that perhaps invading Palestine slowly was their best viable option before the war ended.....I just think it's helpful to be perfectly honest that that's what happened and not play some game about it and pretend they hold the moral high ground on that part of the issue.

I guess I just don't agree on calling it an invasion from the outset. European Jews had the doors closed to them everywhere the world over, illegal immigration or staying in what would become Nazi occupied Europe were their only options. Palestine was hands down the most attractive option, despite a hostile Arab Palestinian population. The main reason being that the Jewish Palestinian minority were basically a state within a state. The Arab and Jewish populations had both sufficiently failed to integrate already that they were operating as largely segregated and autonomous regions. Thus, Jewish Palestine was both reasonably close to Europe, and very much welcoming to the people leaving. I don't believe that's fair to be marked as an invasion from the outset. I must insist that if we get to insist all actors conduct themselves in their own self interest, that the Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine could have been entirely peaceful, and if the Arab population had taken a live and let live approach things could have gone swimmingly. Of course humans aren't ideal or moral very often, so both sides fought and tensions arose. By the time WW2 was over it was too late, the dice were cast and another Jewish exodus from Palestine back to Germany wasn't gonna work. Neither were the Jewish people promised a thing from Germany and it would all be on a hope and a prayer. They had a better shot making their own future by standing their ground in Jewish Palestine. Truth be told, I really can't blame the Jewish side for saying enough is enough and we're gonna stand and fight. Neither can I blame the Arab Palestinian's over much as their biggest fight was really just for independence from the British. With the British gone, both the Jewish and Arab residents fought it out over who would control what, which is sadly fairly natural.

The point I DO lay blame is when the civil war took a pause and Israel declared independence on the UN mandated borders. The Arab world(not the Arab Palestinians) jointly refused to accept any Jewish portion of Palestine and swore to drive them into the sea. Worse, they vehemently called for the retreat of all Arab palestinians from the region to make it easier to clear the country out. Of course, they failed to win that fight and it's been a source of great shame and horror ever since. They didn't fail for lack of strength in arms or numbers, but because each neighbouring Arab state cared not a whit for restoring Palestine to the Arab Palestinians but instead each sought to seize a portion of it for themselves, as invaders. Luckily for Israel they exploited those divisions to come out the other side.

There's plenty of atrocities to blame on the Palestinian response, but also empathy for a displaced and, today, a decimated people still suffering horrifically, mostly for 'sins' of their grandfather's, namely the sin of fighting invaders stubbornly.

But that is all the more the tragedy, as that is very clearly the way the Israeli's started out. They remained peaceful and fled as nation after nation tried to destroy them. The most open place to them in the time probably was Jewish Palestine. For all the atrocities to blame on Israel, I also have empathy for the plight they started from. Even their whole history through today is a tight rope walk were losing any single one of the wars from then till now would have seen the end of Israel as state.

As much blame as one can put on Israel for meeting homemade rockets with professional air strikes, they aren't the only ones to be blaming. Yes, more empathy is needed for the Palestinians than blame. But their are plenty of states, mostly Syria and Iran using the Palestinians as proxies and pawns. So many Arab entities WANT to see dead Palestinians in the news because it plays well for them. I really insist they get as much or more heat than Israel for the tragedy unfolding.

@newtboy
If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%
Jews weren't the only ones relocating to Palestine you know, Arab population growth was being driven up as well. For some strange reason a lot of people were relocating en mass in between WW1 and WW2. Seems disproportionate to me to be the concerned exclusively with the Jewish ones. Doubly so given within that time frame they undoubtedly had better reasons for concern.

My Texas-California comparison stands...
Except for the holocaust part.

Here's the example you want. During the Rwandan genocide, let's pretend we saw a mass exodus of Africans seeking refuge in America. As the genocide in Rwanda was being sifted through, let's pretend that White America decided to ban all land sales to black people, and started refusing to conduct any business with black people. Let's pretend white folks even got up in arms and started committing a few massacres of Black towns and Black people did the same back in defense and retaliation. Now, while all this fighting takes place lets see it escalate to an all out war, and the black population declares independence and accepts a UN mandated solution where they keep Missippi, Alabama and Florida or something. The day after that however, America and NATO announce a joint declaration of war and the president of the USA declares that he's going to drive the Africans into the sea. Now you've got a made in America analogy.

@newtboy,

Why do you insist on trying to contort things?

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.
Provide a source then, I did and it's over 16% as of 1931.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?
I observed that the Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939 was led by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Who later found himself in Germany talking with Hitler and advocating a 'solution' for Palestine ala Italy and Germany. I didn't present an opinion for you to disagree with. I presented a statement of fact which stands regardless of whether you refuse to believe in it or not.

As for partition, stop trying to win points or something, it's inescapable that the partition agreement that the Jewish Palestinians accepted when they declared independence in 1948 was the 1947 UN Partition Plan, on account of the other partition agreements having not yet come into existence yet and all.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.
I think that was addressed earlier what with Arab uprising in the 30s, and the conflict between Arab and Jewish Palestinians continuing on from then all the way till it hit an all out civil war.

Nothing I'm saying here has to justify, forgive or declare Israel a saint and Arabs the sinners. I AM however pointing out some very basic facts that refute the argument that Jewish invaders just came in from Europe and seized Palestine from the Arabs as payback for the holocaust. That simply was not what happened.

Jews were unwelcome and persecuted in Europe long before WW2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, and he wasn't exactly putting pen to brand new ideas nobody had been circulating in Europe already. The Zionists for their part were also busy and in action long before WW2, in no small part for reasons above. The Zionists were absolutely looking to take back 'their' homeland and by invasion if need be. That doesn't mean every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist anymore than the above makes every European and Arab nazi sympathizers. The reality was a lot more muddled and complex.

In the end, the big events driving the Arab-Jewish civil war in Palestine was as you say, an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. So on that front we are well agreed. You seem content to place 100% of the blame on the immigrants(which I must insist we refer to as refugees given they are largely European Jews between 1940-1947). I disagree. I believe I've given adequate evidence to demonstrate that the inability to live together was as much to blame on the Arab Palestinians as it was on the Jewish. If we want to blame anyone in the whole mess, the strongest blame still lies with the Axis powers for creating the refugees in the first place.

I was surprised to hear John Oliver discussing the "Get Rid of the Penny" topic in the USA, not because the subject is uninteresting, but because he failed to point out the glaring anachronism that Americans still call their one cent coin a "penny".

Do they not realise that they started a revolution in 1765, declared independence in 1776, and started making one cent coins in 1793?

Why do they still call cents pennies? After more than 200 years, I would have thought that even the most parochial or remote American would have heard the news.

The Canadians aren't much better. The penny finally dropped there in 2012, when they stopped minting one cent coins. The first Canadian one cent coin was struck in 1858. One strange quirk is that the word penny in Canada used to refer to a two-cent coin, even though they never issued any 2 cent coins! It is possible they were referring to US 2-cent coins, which were issued from 1864 to 1873, but more likely because a French sous was worth approximately half a (British) penny, therefore a two sous coin was the near equivalent of a penny.

In Euroland, the Irish recently started to phase out the use of one and two cent coins, but most of their discussions were also about dropping the penny!

One solution could be to emulate Zimbabwe, where high inflation means that one US dollar is worth about 360 Zimbabwe dollars, or about 520 to a British pound. This neatly avoids the need for any fractional denominations.

Talking about fractional coins:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrence_chard/7145393421/

...which also reveals a surprising etymological link between coins and anatomy, as does this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrence_chard/6390568191/

Perhaps the guy he mentioned getting a cent stuck in his anus was going for the closest alternative.

aaronfr and Kofi,

You both seem to have the notion that Israel is, has and always will be the aggressor in it's relationship with it's neighbours. If you want to talk about unjustified acts of aggression between Israel and neighboring arab states, you can't decide to only look at the time frame which supports your position.

What is your view on Israel's declaration of independence? Even Al Jazeera describes the events as the culmination of a civil war between Jewish and Arab Palestinians, in which the Jewish Palestinians were the minority. The Jewish Palestinians were largely victorious, and declared independence within the the territory they held. Immediately, all neighboring Arab states declared war on them and proceeded to promise a cleansing that would drive the Jews into the sea. They even encouraged an extensive temporary mass exodus of all Arab Palestinians for the expected short duration of the conflict. After all, each individual Arab state vastly outnumbered Israel by itself. To their great consternation, Israel survived and has been in constant conflict ever since.

Don't come out pretending that nobody ever attacks Israel when groups like Hamas and Hezbollah launch attacks into Israeli territory every week. Don't claim you support Syria's or Iran's 'peaceful', position in this when they promise the destruction of Israel and continually provide funding, training and weapons to groups directly launching attacks on Israel.

You cry double standard, and that Israel's attacks are unjustified. Where are you similar cries against Syria and Iran when weapons made by them, and deployed by people they have trained hit Israel?

The point is that violence against and from Israel has been a two way street since before it's declaration of independence, and demanding Israel just take it's lumps and do nothing but file complaints at the UN in it's own defense is naive in the extreme.

>> ^longde:

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:
@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."



I'll quite readily agree that virtually everything the UN does is toothless and in that sense, completely worthless and meaningless. I would however argue that the Russian and Chinese vetoes absolutely do have a material affect on what is going on in Syria. The vetoes are sign of the depth of Russian and Chinese commitment to Assad's regime. That support is absolutely vital and essential to Assad's continued military campaign against his own people. Without that support, the combined efforts of the Arab League and the Syrian opposition would be seeing Assad forced to back down.

I agree with most of your points, except that a toothless UN resolution has any material affect on what is going on in Syria.>> ^bcglorf:

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.
You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.

On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.
The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.
What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?
First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.
As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.
"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

@longde:And I think that anyone from any country would be in a bad position if they went on a foreign broadcast and openly blasted their country and government. They may not be thrown in a gulag, but it wouldn't sit well with the neighbors and boss.

You can't honestly speak like the risk of being thrown in a gulag is equivalent and no different from something not sitting well with the neighbors and boss. If you say something in China that stirs up enough people and you keep on saying it, ending up in a jail is a very real possibility. Meanwhile in America that's exactly what guys like Michael Moore not only make a habit of, they make a very profitable career out of it.


On Taiwan, most mainland chinese consider it a province of China, as well as Tibet. Little real dissent there.

The right of the Taiwanese and Tibetan people to self determination though is in stark contrast to that of Iraqi's, Libyan's, Afghan's, and Syrians. Despite opposing military action in every one of those countries, when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet, it is unquestioningly accepted that all out war is the natural and just course against the people of Taiwan and Tibet if they were to declare independence. That's a stark contrast, and one that I believe would be unexpected by a westerner listener who had just heard the same people opposing military adventures and the global police.

What is the direct damage of voting against the UN measure?

First off, use the right terms. China and Russia didn't merely vote against the UN motion, if they had only done that the motion would have still carried with a majority in favor. China and Russia exercised their veto rights, to trump the will of the majority on the Security council. It's their right within the structure of the UN SC, but that they used it to protect Assad while he murders his own people is hardly something defensible.

As for the direct damage, Syria immediately stepped up it's offensive on Homs:
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Danny Abdul Dayem, a resident of Homs, said: "It has been terrible. There is non-stop bombing with rockets, mortar bombs and tank shells. There were more than 50 people injured in Bab Amr today.

"I saw with my own eyes kids with no legs, and a kid who lost his whole bottom jaw. It is terrible."

The world needs more of this. Our youth need to be sharing views with each other from across different nations.

Brings to mind a seemingly weird thing. Ask this group about Taiwan. I've been surprised to discover that most anti-war, anti-intervention Chinese people who have very 'western' ideas, still adamantly believe China should go to war if Taiwan ever declared independence.

It's just very jarring. After saying as a matter of course imposing things on people through war is wrong, it is also just assumed as obvious that between Taiwan and China it's an entirely different matter and war is of course the right decision.

Wikipedia: Independence Day, commonly known as the Fourth of July, is a federal holiday in the United States commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, declaring independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Independence Day is commonly associated with fireworks, parades, barbecues, carnivals, fairs, picnics, concerts, baseball games, family reunions, political speeches and ceremonies, in addition to various other public and private events celebrating the history, government, and traditions of the United States. Independence Day is the national day of the United States.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Can we agree that the 56% was an absurd way to try to end the civil war? Obviously the Arab Palestinians weren't satisfied, and it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.
Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948? I am honestly curious because I am just starting to learn about this period of Israel's history.


I'll gladly agree that 56% for a group that had less than 50% of the population is hardly what one would call fair. In hindsight, I'd even say it would've been better for the UN to offer much, much less, but only on the condition that it would have been enough of a concession to avoid the war that immediately followed. I think most historians seem sure that even giving 1% to the creation of a Jewish state would have still resulted in the same war and outrage from the neighbouring Arab states.

More importantly than being "fair", the UN borders were arrived at by no special formula planned to take advantage of the Arabs. The UN, as it always has since, was simply picking the existing borders of the day and saying let's all call it quits right now and just get along. The 56% the Jewish Palestinians held was the land they had gained fighting with their Arab Palestinian brothers. The 44% the Arab Palestinians held was the land they'd held fighting their Jewish Palestinian brothers. Or to state it more simply, NO ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!

it seems that much more than that is now in the hands of Israel as the result of continued conflict, so the Zionists do not appear to be satisfied either.

I think it's unfair to blame the land Israel gained after declaring independence on Zionist greed. The reality was a war was being fought that left Palestine divided roughly in half with the Jewish side holding the bigger half. The UN recommended ending the fighting and maintaining separate states roughly along those borders.

The Jewish Palestinians said yes, they wanted peace along those borders. Most likely because from any practical standpoint, they were in no position to try and fight for anything better, they were lucky to get as far as they had outnumbered as they were.

The Arab Palestinians for their part were largely ready to say yes as well, only because they were fearful they to would lose in a longer fight. The changing factor was the neighboring Arab states, each of whom vastly outnumbered and outgunned the tiny fledgling state of Israel. All the neighboring Arab states agreed that the conditions for peace were NOT acceptable to them because they were each convinced they could gain more land for themselves from Palestine.

Not even the most zealous Zionist could have seen that not only would they survive such a war, but that they would even manage to gain more land in the process. The expansion of Israel's borders in 1948 can hardly be blamed on Zionist expansion, but instead much more simply on the Arab nations mystifying ability to lose the war they by all rights should have not only won, but won easily. To this day that loss is the single greatest source of shame in much of Arab identity.

Also, bcglorf, you keep talking about a civil war as if that is the natural thing that happens because the Arab population was becoming more oppressive toward the Jewish population. Are you denying the massive influx of Jews pre-1948?
Of course I'm not denying the huge influx of Jews leading up to 1948. It just can't be mentioned without obviously asking why they were coming. The video would suggest a Zionist plot to invade Palestine. I think you can figure out for yourself though if Jews might have had some other reasons around that time to be looking for a new place to live outside of Europe's borders. I was reluctant to bring it up of course because someone would think I'm trying to justify making Arabs pay the price for the Nazi's crimes, which is in no way my point.

My other point regarding the civil war in Palestine is that there were in fact a great many Jews already living in Palestine before the Zionists figured on it being a good place for their own schemes. In fact, one of the reasons it was high on the list was that there were already a very good number of Jewish Palestinians living there. I don't think even the video denies that the conflict in Palestine prior to 1948 was a civil war. They just suggest that it was Zionists that stirred up a Palestine that had otherwise gotten on well for the last century. I think since the time frame we are talking about is the time where Palestine was a British Colony, and where WW1 and WW2 were being waged, that maybe there were other very big factors in Palestine's newly enflamed ethnic tensions. Factors big enough that Zionism was just another symptom rather than an initial cause.

we are in agreement. Hurray

EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is here. My main beef was with the video. It said your same statement about how everyone had been getting along well for a long time before. Then, at the 6 minute mark it suddenly changed course and declared that "in 1900 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine".

My beef is the video selectively wants to be able to use contradictory sets of facts. It will use the peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs as proof that before Zionism, things were fine. Then later, when it wants to paint Zionism as a foreign infiltration of Palestine, suddenly there were very few Jews in Palestine in 1900. Either there were centuries of Jews and Arabs living together peacefully or there were very few Jews, NOT both.

I also objected to the video declaring, again in the first 5 minutes, that the Zionists were unwilling to entertain any idea of sharing any land with Arabs. Quite plainly, the strongest counter argument is that in 1948 they went along with the other Jewish Palestinian leaders in declaring independence along the borders the UN had mandated. Clearly there is a time in 1948 where even the Zionists were content to accept a peace on terms that left 43% of Palestine for the Arab Palestinians. Clearly at this point in time, the neighboring Arab states, and not the Zionists, were the ones that instigated further hostilities. This is so clear, that you'd be hard pressed to find any Arab scholar who disagrees. The neighboring Arab nations were absolutely set and intent on rejecting and removing the newly independent Israeli state, no matter how peaceful or friendly it was willing to be.

I'm merely rejecting the video's view of Zionism as the sole instigator and agitator in the entire conflict. I don't deny in any way that Zionist's committed numerous atrocities, and worked actively to incite violence and conflict. I deny only that the Zionists were hardly the only faction in Palestine doing that after the British withdrawal. Ignoring the Arab majority's own active role in prejudice against non-Arab Palestinians is beyond dishonest, it's sinister. To mention how little land the Jewish Palestinians owned, without mentioning the active programs to legally block non-Arabs from purchasing land is sinister.

Sorry, the first 6 minutes of the video leaving me utterly convinced that it is not only one-sided, but deliberately and knowingly one-sided with intent of biasing it's viewers with half-truth.

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

How can you say you support small government while supporting laws that allow the government to decide who can marry? Why should government have any say in marriage?

The issue is one of State's rights versus Federal - and it is a discussion this nation has had before we even declared independance. The founders favored strong state's rights over strong federal authority (for obvious reasons). The concept was that the states would be government 'labs' where different ideas could be tested. In one state, people would use method "A" while another state would use method "B". Citizens who disliked a method could go whereever they preferred. Successful systems would be duplicated and refined, while unsuccessful systems would fail as people voted with their feet - literally. A strong federal system imposing a nationalized 'one size' policy on all aspects of life disrupts this marketplace of ideas - almost always to the people's detriment.

The response to your question then is this... I am against the FEDERAL government imposing a solution on gay marriage, immigration, drug legalization, et al. I think the states should make these calls via their referendum process. That way the people will decide and not distant, mercurial federal bureuecrats.

Some states will invariably choose to allow gay marriages while others will not. The gay population would go to states that curried to them. If the resulting population shift brought prosperity, then the model would be duplicated. If the population shift brought economic problems and conflicts then states would notice it and hew more towards traditional family models.

Let the case be made at the state level. If the case in compelling then it will succeed. If the case it not convincing it will fail.