(I'll point out yes, earlier I said I wish you'd move to Israel, and, yes, your attitude disgusts me. However, we are a "we" in that we both go to the same polls and both have the right to vote. Good luck, sir.)

So, your solution is you want folks to go into the area and kill everyone they can't convert? Good job. Real Christian of you. The "we" would be the United States of America. You see it as we're acting from rational self interest, I see it as we're being aggressors. Sorry, but, I'm pretty sure you don't get to revoke my citizenship just because you don't like me. I'm here listening to your opinion, I'm just expressing mine that what you're saying is wrong, war mongering, violent, hypocritical and reflects poorly on a country that claims "liberty and justice for all."

Another sane person using logic and reason against the indefensible position of American extremists! My goodness! I'm so happy!

(If you're all agreed that whoever kills all the other people owns the land in Israel/Palestine, then by all means go support your beliefs but don't use taxpayer dollars for your jihad against Iran.)

Golly, you really put me in my place. Wikipedia aggregates links to original sources. Anyone who cities it as a source in an academic paper is, yes, unacceptably lazy. Oh, hey, look, a copy of the document recording early recognition of its statehood was linked right there: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000827/082711eo.pdf If you'd like to go through the 319 sources confirming the information on the page, by all means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#cite_note-0 I'm not going to hold your hand while you do that, though.

I'm totally for this plan of yours, actually. If we want so badly for the Nation of Israel (as in, all living Jewish people) to have a sovereign land to call their own...we should give them some of our land. :p

Sorry, I should say "had no right." I mean, we did kill everybody, so we presently have right to most of the land by virtue of no living challengers left. The question is when we as a globe choose to stop that method of acquiring ownership. The thing is, somebody has to stop /first/. By telling Iran we'll just blow them up if we don't like what we're doing we, uh, don't exactly have any more rights to say who owns what than they do.

America has no right to the land we invaded 400 years ago. In fact, there are nations in existence who have never surrendered their right to land we are now occupying. The Lakota nation still owns land we are occupying under US law. As in, we fully recognize they own the land, and our response so far is "Whatta you gonna do about it?" http://www.lakotafreedom.com/ At some point, we either have to start recognizing states and giving due recognition to present powers and choose to stop giving land to whoever kills the most people, or no one ever has the right to any land except what can be defended by force of arms.

Sorry, have I been unclear somewhere? As long as we have a canon aimed at them, they have the right to have a canon too. As long as I can't tell people like you and equally zealous Iranians apart, because you're equally nasty and equally violent, I can't fathom why the Iranians don't have the right to protect themselves from you.

"The right of self-defense is an inalienable right." Okay. So. Can you explain to me how you're opposing Iran developing nuclear weapons? Israel fired a payloadless Jericho missile into the air Wednesday to threaten Iran...who might be developing nuclear power for its country, or might be developing nuclear weapons, or both. Just to remind them they already have nuclear weapons, and will kill Iranians before Iran can arm to say "Hey, you can't just nuke us if you feel like it." Nuclear weapons ensure mutually assured destruction, they're not great for just randomly bombing people. (Although Israel doesn't seem to think so.)