Meh. So the Church of Scotland seeks to misuse their Bible to delegitimize the Nation of Israel and its claim to the Land of Israel. Who cares? This Jews sure does not. Know what the difference is between this document and 2000 years of on-again, off-again anti-Semitism on the part of various churches? It's this: Finally, for the first time since the Arabian invaders destroyed the remaining Jewish communities of the Land of Israel, the Nation of Israel has returned to its land as its rightful soveriegn residents, with the the means to defend itslef againt any future invaders. The Church of Scotland doesn't like that? Too bad. I say, bring it!

Some good points, jimmylynn. I think Glick is trying to highlight the external interferance of NGOs is Israel's democratic system, aided by sympathetic liberal holdouts in the justice system. I see more external meddling in internal Israeli politics and jurisprudence than in any other sovereign nation. And, as Glick points out, many of these NGOs do not have Israel's best interests at heart. But to your comments, I would say that any non-Jew willing to live in an authentic Jewish state, with his civil and human rights protected by law, ought to be able to so, perhaps as non-citizen residents. And don't worry about Israel's Jews; demographics indicate that Jews are increasing their population percentage over time.

Follow the money, dvorahbee. All of those Middle East Studies departments are funded with Saudi dollars, and support Wahhabi Islam (the most rigid brand of Islam). But, and here's the rub, where does that Saudi money come from? From you and me, every time we fill our tanks with gasoline.

Yes, but this time, the Jews are well armed and capable of defending themselves. No matter what happens, attempts at exterminating the Jewish nation will not be a one-sided affair this time around, thank God.

And, pray tell, American_in_Europe, what might Israel's "crimes against humanity" be, exactly?

Actually, the chip inside the device he uses to speak was developed in Israel. I guess he ought to return it.

It would be nice curl ourselves up into a ball and ignore the world. That worked in the 18th and 19th centuries, when defense meant a battery of canon in the harbor to sink any enemy warships that dared sale in to attack the US. But we live in an era of ICBMs, where just minutes after some jihadist mullah orders a buttin pushed, a major US city is reduced to a steaming pile of radioactive rubble. To those isolationist libertarians who feel that we should suffer such an attack and then respond with our own nukes, I say, why should we have to endure such an attack before we act in our self defense? Liek it or not, the only way to prevent such an attack is the projection of power throughout the world, especially to those parts which hate us. They must be made to fear us, not love us.

Hatred of threats is a normal human emotion that is essential to self-preservation. The Left wants to eliminate hateful thoughts (of conservatives, not liberals) in order to reduce the resistance to the changes the Left seeks. "Don't be a hater" is their mantra, as they express hatred for anyone who expresses hatred. But you cannot change human nature, and trying to is folly. Imagine our servicemen being told in WWII not to "hate on" the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese. We'd all be saluting Der Fuhrer today.

Hey, there, funky-wunky soul brother. When they come to kill you, are you just gonna say, "hey, that's cool, man. Do your thing" as they slit your throat. There is evil in the world, and the Jews have decided that they no longer wish to be silent victims of that evil. Self-defense is the most basic human right.

And, how often do the Palestinian Arabs warn their targets, repeatedly, including the date of the planned attack? The Israelis did this several times prior to the attack, the Brits chose to ignore the warnings. Besides, what do you know about the British governership in Mandatory Palestine? Do you even know how many Jews were hanged for defending their lives? Are you aware that the Brits armed the Arabs and encouraged them to kill Jews, even as they disarmed the Jews? The similarities to British rule in Palestine and British rule in the American colonies are extensive.

That's the problem, Curtis. The terrorist attackers do NOT wear uniforms, in violation of the Geneva Convention. If they did wear uniforms, it would be a "fair" fight. But they use guerilla tactics, and that is a war crime.