On what basis do you attribute 90% of the land to Arab ownership? Before the British, it was ruled by the Ottomans. The vast majority of the territory was uninhabited and unused. True, from the destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD) until the early 1900s, Jewish population was very small. But so was the Arab one. By all historical accounts, this was a desolate land for the last 2000 years. Dispersed Arab villages with miniscule populations do not a country make.

This is the common "there are no Palestinians" or "Palestine is not a country" argument. Are you arguing that because people were dominated by different empires in the past that means they have no right to self-determination? It doesn't matter whether they were a country or not, or how poorly developed the land was. These were PEOPLE, and they had the right to live on the land they had been living on for generations without being forced off it in favor of borders drawn by an Imperial power in favor of a completely different group. Nor are they responsible for the actions of the mufti, who was appointed by the British administration despite receiving the least support in the election, mind you.

However, the 90% figure is a gross exaggeration that simply ignores the reality. And keep in mind that both peoples have a claim on 100% of the other's land.

Ignores what reality? Yea I know that people try to spin the numbers and say 'historians are unsure' etc., but even with the most generous estimates, Jews did not make up more than 10% of the population, and this was AFTER the first wave of Zionist immigration. Also, I have no idea what you mean by both having a claim to 100% of the other's land.

As for trying to balance massacre for massacre, I'm of the impression that more were carried out by the IDF and its precursor groups, but that's not the main point. The main point is that the Arab uprisings were sporadic riots (many, though not all, of which can be seen in the context of anti-colonial resistance), whereas the Jewish ones were part of a centralized campaign of "population transfer" that they deemed essential for the founding of Israel and were carried out by groups that later became the core of the IDF. From a recent MSNBC article:

David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father, noted that the Deir Yassin massacre was a trigger for other evacuations of Palestinians, without which the Israeli state could not have been born. "I support compulsory transfer," he insisted at the time. "I don't see in it anything immoral."

Let's step back and get some historical perspective. We forced the Native Americans out of their homeland. It's much too late to undo the damage now, since several generations have passed, and it's also agreed that it was a complicated issue, because they did slaughter American settlers in reprisal, etc. Yet that does not change the fact that they were largely the victims, and we're not going around denying them rights and rubbing their faces in the dirt by forcing them to acknowledge "American's moral right to exist". On the other hand, and I'll say it again, the Palestinians who lost family in the massacres and were driven from their homes are STILL ALIVE TODAY.

Obviously a peace process is necessary. But as long as Israel continues to practice collective punishment and deny the refugees' right of return (in violation of the UN charter, might I add), it has NO MORAL STANDING, and neither does any pro-Israel argument that ignores this basic human reality. Jews should know better than anyone that there is absolutely no justification for a directed campaign of 'population transfer'.

...how the steelworkers' union is just another example of those detestable liberal eggheads and non-hardworking (non-white) Americans who support Obama.

Shawn, if it's really about electability, will you stop your bleating after we elect Obama with no help from you? Would that be okay with you, sir?

I think with the right positioning, this won't be able to hurt Obama that much. This is a state decision, after all, and most of the rallying cry for conservatives is that courts shouldn't impose gay marriage against the will of the people. In a liberal state like California I don't think that's going to be a big deal. All Obama needs to say is that he supports civil unions and the rest is up to the states. Of course that won't please the pro-federal amendment folks, but they're not a majority and they were never going to vote Democratic in the first place. Even a majority Republican Congress under Bush couldn't get that passed.

That's a clever one, Shawn! How long did it take you to come up with that? Have a piece of candy.

Shawn's best argument about Obama's 'unelectability' is that Shawn himself will go vote for McCain just to be right.

I wonder whether he'll implode once Obama's election becomes inevitable or whether we'll still see him here in 09 ranting about how Clinton still has a chance.

This may well be the first presidential election in contemporary times in which voters (namely Gen-X'ers/Millennials) have gotten most of their information from YouTube, Wiki, and online "news"

Uh huh. As opposed to you oh-so-wise boomers who get their news from where? Here's a hint - that part of the population who still thinks that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 doesn't come from us.

Should I even point out that the issue is that the WaPo prints stuff like this and is still considered a 'liberal' paper? Or should I not waste my breath on drive-by trolls who leave sarcastic one-line comments on every article?

Someone's actually deleting troll comments? Hallelujah. Please delete my comment above, now that it no longer makes sense (and this one too while you're at it).