Time to start some controversy.

I've been mulling this one over since I accused Kurt Nimmo of hating Jews. He says he merely opposes Zionism, but having been around the world at least once (one more time than Nimmo, anyway), I've learned a lot about human nature. That Nimmo hates Jews is beyond question, and he never denied it in our email exchange.

Having said that, it seems that issues often can be paired up. Years ago I read an op ed piece which started off citing gun control and abortion. The writer noted that if you're for one, you're probably against the other. That's always stuck with me, because as unrelated as the two issues seem, it's quite true that proponants of either are usually opponants of the other.

So back to Zionism, the desire for a return of Jews to an historically established homeland. Paired with that is the call for a Palistinian state. If you're for one, you're probably against the other.

What gets me is there is historical precedent for a Jewish homeland. A Palistinian homeland is an artificial construct. The so-called Palistinians were kicked out of Jordan and Syria and there has never been a Palistinian homeland.

I'm not utterly unfeeling for the Palistinians, though they make it very difficult to sympathise when they blow up civilians--children and the elderly--and dress toddlers up like homicide bombers, but they are an Arab problem. Not an Isreali problem. They were kicked out of Arab states and stake claim to a land that they have no historical claim to. They choose to vent their frustrations and desire for a state on the Israelis, and the Israelis choose to defend themselves in their own fashion. If you don't like getting your home bulldozed, stop throwing grenades into schoolbuses.

So if you're going to endorse the Palistinian claim to an artificial construct, how can you possibly say the Jewish claim to an historical homeland is wrong?