And it's not Kucinich. Link in sig.

why not kucinich?

Without getting into too much about the specifics of Israel v Gaza, I wonder how the various posters here would feel if, for example, a group of Native Americans got some funding from the Chinese or Venezuela or Saudi and then started launching rockets into the US to reclaim their homeland and sovereignity. They in many ways have a moral right to do so. Or a more recent example, how about if Mexico lobbed rockets into San Diego to protest the loss of California, Arizona, and so on? How far back can grievances go? How should an aggrieved party act? How should the 'occupiers' (the US in Manhattan and California, Israel in Gaza, Spain in the Basque region, the UK in N Ireland, and on and on) react? When do 'the facts on the ground' become the baseline and override history? Almost every nation on earth has historical roots in invasion of one group over another.

Can there ever be a 'solution' to Palestine/Israel?

I honestly don't know how to feel about the Palestine/Israel situation, there are levels upon levels. I think that's why the problems are so intractable and seemingly neverending. Israel is clearly defending herself, but should Israel ever have been created? Palestinians are clearly being victimized, but are they blameless in their choices (leadership by Hamas, rejecting Oslo, etc)? Should the US and US citizens even be involved? Can we even have an opinion of note without 'being there'? There are moral, practical, historical, and geopolitical issues here, and some of them contradict. I believe practically that Israel is a fact, and deserves to remain there...but I also have some issues with the morality of its creation...but I also value Israel as a US ally, as the most 'Western' democracy in the Middle East...but some Israelis have made horrible choices (unending settlement expansion being the main one I think) and others practice self-defense in a pretty ugly manner. So am I 'pro-Israel' or 'pro-Palestine'? I am both and neither. I think a substantial, less strident majority of Americans are where I am, sort of in the middle with an ear for both causes. The center is always more silent than the radicals on either side of an issue.

There are posters here who are certain that Israel does no wrong, and others that Palestinians do no wrong...those who cannot see the complexity and nuance are really not helping. Just as they do not help any issue.

I'm reminded of the scene in "Schindler's List" in which thousands of Jews packed into freight trains are forced to smother on a blazing hot summer day. Finding them there, Oskar Schindler runs to get a hose in order to give some of them water and save their lives. But it's the reaction of his Nazi comrades that is truly chilling: they burst out laughing, as if he's attempting something monumentally absurd. It must seem to them as if Schindler is like a child running frantically to save worms from dehydration. They literally don't see the Jews as human beings. To treat them as such is for the Nazis the height of absurdity. This is the same process of dehumanization and rationalization which always accompanies genocide. Statements such as those made by Goldfarb - deliberately justifying mass murder - are a sure sign that something similar is taking place now.

He's honest. Just saying that he isn't the one in the video.

I liked your comment and felt your points were well made. One teeny quibble: it's "Just like a Willys in four-wheel drive"
A "Willys" is a Jeep made by Kaiser Motors [...]-- Derbig Mooser

I know what a Willys is my dancing teddy bear; I've ridden in one. One of my closest friends -- her husband buys & refurbishes them. At present he has one that moves, and another immobile hulk of the same persuasion.

...it is up to us to maintain the purity and inerrancy of the sacred writings. -- Derbig Mooser

Yes... the title of my comment is heretical; an obscene misuse of canonical lyrics.

Goodnight to you, American Beauty.

I'll take your word for it that you get overcome with rage and shame, but I have to disagree that you also become inarticulate! And, I want to thank you, your posts about zionism are eye-opening and thought-provoking, and I appreciate it greatly. Even if I was raised to be Southern Baptist (I got over that, however, at 16, and pretty much have sworn off all religion now).

And, in this little fan letter, I might as well go ahead and thank you for the laughs you've given me over the few months I've been reading here. Some of your remarks do truly make me laugh out loud!

--Ron

Mr. Mooser says: "So I know I'm not much good. I'm just overcome with rage and shame, which makes me inarticulate."

Where did you get this talking point?

how about if Mexico lobbed rockets into San Diego to protest the loss of California, Arizona, and so on?

what an amazing coincidence that it comes from the article(s) linked on the antiwar.com blog and is the scenario that Justin Raimondo presents/debunks in his antiwar.com article for today (Monday). The blog post:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/01/04/they-lob-chutzpah-bombs-too/

From the supposed "Op-Ed" that was printed by multiple authors:

http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/20090101/OPINION03/901010338

How long would this country tolerate rocket attacks from Mexico?

And Raimondo's article, where he dissects that very scenario:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14001

We all know the rationalization for Israel's brutal invasion of the Gaza Strip. After all, it's been reiterated endlessly over the airwaves by official and unofficial spokesmen for the Israeli government, on all channels, and with no rebuttal or skeptical perspective from Palestinians or, indeed, from anyone vaguely sympathetic to their plight. Their argument goes like this: if rockets were coming from Mexican territory and landing in San Diego, posing a threat to the life and safety of American citizens, we all know what would happen.

This is supposed to settle the question of the morality of the invasion, but it doesn't. Because what we are seeing in this argument is a variation on the old cherry-picking technique of the neocons in the Bush administration, who utilized "talking points" that were very selective in their presentation of the facts to make the case for invading Iraq.

What the rationalizers leave out, of course, is the ongoing blockade of Gaza, imposed after Hamas took control in the wake of its overwhelming election victory – and an attempted (and partially successful) coup d'etat by the losers of that election, the Fatah organization of the late Yasser Arafat (now headed up by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas). The blockade itself was an act of war, by which the Israelis struck the first blow.

With this correction made, then, let's revisit – and reverse – the Israeli argument, putting all the known facts in their proper context. If Mexico – in an attempt to regain its lost territory, the promised land of California – invaded California, drove the residents of San Diego from their city, cooped them up in, say, Death Valley, and wouldn't let anything but a basic minimum of consumer goods and medical supplies either in or out, well, we all know what would happen.

Perhaps you need to get some less predictable and more reliable sources?