[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Okay, isn't it pretty obvious that Orion27 is trying to be funny by playing something of the devil's advocate and adopting the extreme leftwingnut wacko-position in an attempt to show how silly it is?

Personally, I think it's kind of a lame attempt, but isn't it even lamer not to recognize it, and waste time arguing against it?

[Nicko]

Hmmm I would have said he was emulating the extreme fundamentalist conservative position. But when you get that far gone, they both end up looking the same

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Personally i think citizenship should be a bilateral thing between countries. As soon as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan accept israelis and permit them to vote and live in their territories, Israel can accept their citizens as citizens of Israel. it shouldnt be just Israel dolling out citizenship and rights

I agree with these two sentences of yours completely, the citizenship-question should be bilateral, the palestinian refuggees, who were expelled by Israel, and their descendants should be able to reside in Israel if they so wish, and the arabic jews that were expelled from the arabic countries or that left on their own accord due to social, political and economical pressure, or that left simply for being able to join Israel, and all their descendants should be equally able to regain their citizenship in the arabic countries if they so wish.

Unfortunately that's unrealistic since if it is not maxed in some way, the demographic changes would quickly make a jewish state impossible to uphold while at the same time being democratic.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why stop at blaming a country that controls 1% of a region's land for all of its problems? It's true, Israel is responsible for corrupt Arab dictatorships. Israel is responsible for the backward nature of Islamic culture. Israel is responsible for Sunni on Shiite violence in Iraq. But it goes further than that: Israel is the root of all problems in the whole world. Stubbed your toe? Israel's fault. Bird crapped on your car? Israel's fault. Got fired? Israel's fault. It's the global Jewish conspiracy that accounts for every single problem you know of - I have to admit it. We're just that powerful, and there's nothing you gentiles can do about it.

I was debating a friend of mine who truly believes the "Zionist" is the source of global conflict and their hegemony is evident all around us. He posted a link from the Zionist Watch affiliate of the Serban Defense League which stated;
- Michael Eisner is a Jew
- Joe Roth, "also a Jew"
- CEO Steven Bornstein who is a jew
- Gerald M. Levin, is a Jew
- Goldberg and Hersch are both Jews
- Norman Pearlstine, a Jew
- Laurence Tisch, a Jew
- Rupert Murdoch is not a Jew, but Peter Chernin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew.
- Dreamworks, all Jews
- Geffen, Spielberg, and Katzenburg; all Jews

Throughout this entire article I kept looking for "zionist" on zionist watch. It turns out it's really "Jew Watch" and the crime the above are guilty of is being Jewish. The best part of all this is the fact that the person I was debating is a card-carrying Apple fanatic, owns several shares of AAPL, and hinges every email on the words of Steve Jobs. I reminded him that Steve Jobs and Wozniak are both Jews. Their massive interest in all facets of media and home computing globally can only be viewed as hostile by the reasoning of the link he posted. To top it off, he railed on Corporate America for outsourcing. Of course, I reminded him of the Apple Support Center in Bangalore.

Needless to say, all Jews except Jobs are suspicious. All corporations except Apple are reprehensible.

[Aron Peterson]

Are you sure Jobs isn't half-Syrian half-Gentile, and grew up Lutheran and tinkered with Buddhism? Also, didn't Apple leave Bangalore a month after opening in May 2006?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Unfortunately that's unrealistic since if it is not maxed in some way, the demographic changes would quickly make a jewish state impossible to uphold while at the same time being democratic.

Taliesin

I would prefer the existence of a Jewish state over "full" democracy in that region, just as i'd prefer a budhist Tibet over a Chineeses Tibet. Apart from policy (economic, social, political, etc)..... there arent too many non-muslims who would want to relocate to muslim countries anyway. So im not saying that Israel should just any muslim to live there, they still reserve the right to choose who is awarded Israeli citizenship. But the sheer fact that Israel has muslim and christian citizens, and the other side has close to none, and as we have seen in the case of Lebanon, actually assisinate non-muslim politicians, i dont see Israel as doing anything less than what they *should*. On the other hand, i see the Arabs as being Nazis (in the Jew-hating sence of the word, although it applies to Christians, Budhists, Hindus, Zorastrans, etc in the ME).

Also worth checking out ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqJw8...did%3D99189668

Cheers

PS>> i really fear for Israel with Iran so determined to go nuclear and at the same time "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" -(Iran's monkey-leader)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

PS>> i really fear for Israel with Iran so determined to go nuclear and at the same time "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" -(Iran's monkey-leader)

Actually, I think the correct quote was "wipe Israel off the map"

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Okay, isn't it pretty obvious that Orion27 is trying to be funny by playing something of the devil's advocate and adopting the extreme leftwingnut wacko-position in an attempt to show how silly it is?

Personally, I think it's kind of a lame attempt, but isn't it even lamer not to recognize it, and waste time arguing against it?

Yes, but haven't you noticed how he does not in fact sound remotely like any of the local "leftwingnut wackos" around here and in fact comes off soundly, well, just kind of crazy.

Now, we don't have to parody the fascist-nutjobs on the right because, well, they do it to themselves. Just look at how many idiots thought Steven Colbert was sincere.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Yes, but haven't you noticed how he does not in fact sound remotely like any of the local "leftwingnut wackos" around here

Actually he parodied quite a few "leftwingnut wacko" positions quite accurately.

Let's see: Blaming the existence of tiny little Israel amid 23 or so giant Arab nations for most of the problems of the Middle East. Last I checked, that was a crazy belief of the left.

The belief that the US shouldn't support Israel, or that we must also support non-democratic Muslim countries to make it "fair". Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

What's the big deal if Muslim nations -no matter how unstable- get nukes, because Israel has nukes, therefore it's only "fair". Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

Suicide bombing is the only choice that poor, poor, pitiful downtrodden Muslims picked on by Israel and the big bad US have. Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

The belief that all is lost because Harry Reid and the Democrats, the owners of defeat, say so. Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

Jimmy Carter's nonsense beliefs that Israel is an "apartheid country". Yup, that great bastion of the right, Jimmy Carter... oops, wait. My mistake. Crazy lefwinger.

and in fact comes off soundly, well, just kind of crazy.

You think? Yeah, a great many of the beliefs of the crazy left come off that way!


Of course, of course, "Buuuuuut it's the riiiiight's fault...."

I've long pointed out that when the left's crazy ideas are pointed out, your ONLY response is to do just what you did, whine: "B-buuuut it's the right's faaault..."!

Gee, nothing predictable about that!

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You defeat terrorists by taking away the hope of their success.

You're right. The English gave up too quickly when the Jews were doing their terrorist attacks. History sucks doesn't it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Are you sure Jobs isn't half-Syrian half-Gentile, and grew up Lutheran and tinkered with Buddhism? Also, didn't Apple leave Bangalore a month after opening in May 2006?

You're certainly welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it; Jobs is Jewish with an Apple Support Center in Bangalore.

*to assuage those jumping on board late to indict me for (enter slanderous comment here), neither of the above is a bad thing in my opinion. It is just a response to someone who is correcting me. I'll readily admit being wrong, but all the information I'm able to find affirms my statement.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Actually he parodied quite a few "leftwingnut wacko" positions quite accurately.

Let's see: Blaming the existence of tiny little Israel amid 23 or so giant Arab nations for most of the problems of the Middle East. Last I checked, that was a crazy belief of the left.

The belief that the US shouldn't support Israel, or that we must also support non-democratic Muslim countries to make it "fair". Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

What's the big deal if Muslim nations -no matter how unstable- get nukes, because Israel has nukes, therefore it's only "fair". Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

Suicide bombing is the only choice that poor, poor, pitiful downtrodden Muslims picked on by Israel and the big bad US have. Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

The belief that all is lost because Harry Reid and the Democrats, the owners of defeat, say so. Yup, crazy leftwing belief.

Jimmy Carter's nonsense beliefs that Israel is an "apartheid country". Yup, that great bastion of the right, Jimmy Carter... oops, wait. My mistake. Crazy lefwinger.


You think? Yeah, a great many of the beliefs of the crazy left come off that way!


Of course, of course, "Buuuuuut it's the riiiiight's fault...."

I've long pointed out that when the left's crazy ideas are pointed out, your ONLY response is to do just what you did, whine: "B-buuuut it's the right's faaault..."!

Gee, nothing predictable about that!

Maybe they come off that way to you, but your perceptions don't appear to have any correlation with reality. Your whole worldview is a little shaky. You definitely seem to have trouble with analogies and metaphor. Your inability to understand Carter's apartheid comparison really demonstrates a very limited, and apparently literalist thinking. No wonder you have so much difficulty grasping the nuances of liberalism. It requires too much careful analysis. It's simpler just to cast the world in Us-them, right-wrong (or "left" in your limited demarkation of the political spectrum) dynamics then to actually examine issues carefully.

I suspect the world will always be frustrating to you as you'll never get the homogenized, fairy tale world of simple lines and boundaries that you want. Your best bet is to go on deluding yourself into believing the world is exactly what you'd like it to be--a whole mess of folks grossly inferior in thinking, lifestyle, morality, and merit to you. You're off to a wonderful start, to be sure. Just one request: do so quietly and let the rest of us take up the serious business of trying figure out solutions to the real problems. Thanks.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

You're right. The English gave up too quickly when the Jews were doing their terrorist attacks. History sucks doesn't it?

If only you knew your history.

The character of attacks made by Jews in pre-state Israel is very different from what we know as terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks are usually characterized by a few things: (1) to cause fear which will motivate political change, (2) executed with no advance warning, (3) do not specify a safe route of escape where all people can escape unharmed, (4) tends to be an attack on non-combatants, such as buses, bus stations, shopping malls.

Look at the King David Hotel, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Irgun representatives have always claimed that the warning was given well in advance so that adequate time was available to evacuate the hotel. Menachem Begin writes (p. 221, The Revolt, <1951> ed.) that the telephone message was delivered 25 - 27 minutes before the explosion. The British authorities denied for many years that there had been a warning at all, but the leaking of the internal police report on the bombing during the 1970s proved that a warning had indeed been received. However, the report claimed that the warning was only just being delivered to the officer in charge as the bomb went off (Bethel). According to Begin, the British had been warned of the bombing but refused to evacuate the building because "We don't take orders from the Jews" [3]. However, according to Shmuel Katz, in his book Days of Fire, "The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and that he had insisted that nobody leave the building. Katz says that this version may be dismissed because it probably developed from the fact that while some of Shaw's close colleagues and subordinates were killed, he himself went unscathed, and gained credence when Shaw was transferred from Palestine a month later. It's more likely that the British did not take the warning seriously because they didn't believe Etzel could infiltrate their HQ that was guarded so well."
The French Consulate did open their windows from fear of a possible blast, and the operator of the Palestine Post called the police after the warning. When the bombing occurred, there were already several reporters in the area because of the leaked warning.[2]

---- an attack on the British military HQ was a legitimate military target. Warnings were given half an hour in advance, to both the British and the neighboring French consul. The reporters were present, the French listened, the British didn't, and then to avoid the shame of having been warned and not listening, hid the fact of the warning for decades.

For these reasons, the pre-state Israel attacks on British military infrastructure in pre-state Israel are not terrorism. The only criteria they meet is the attempt to motivate political change.

Let me know when today's terrorists give warnings with specific details and escape routes where those evacuated can be sure they won't be harmed.

[OreoCookie]

Terrorism is terrorism, there is no better kind of terrorism. They've used terrorism (`a different flavor') and got what they wanted.

[vmarks]

No, what they did doesn't meet the definition of terrorism. Terrorism involves attacking non-combatants. Attacking the British military HQ excludes it.

[OreoCookie]

You're trying to argue with semantics now? It's terrorism, plain and simple. And they've achieved their goal. That's how the state of Israel came to existence. Not that it matters now, but it's history the Israelis have to live with.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're trying to argue with semantics now? It's terrorism, plain and simple. And they've achieved their goal. That's how the state of Israel came to existence. Not that it matters now, but it's history the Israelis have to live with.

No kidding. In fact, one could argue that terrorists who win are usually called freedom fighters afterward.

Next vmarks is going to try to argue that groups such as the tamil tigers are not terrorists because they target both military and non-military targets.

[vmarks]

targeting non-combatants is wrong, can you agree?

The king david hotel targeted combatants.

Next?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

targeting non-combatants is wrong, can you agree?

Targeting anybody with a bomb is wrong.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The king david hotel targeted combatants.

No, the extremists didn't target `combatants', they targeted an administrative complex with plenty of civilians (British, Jews, Arabs, men, women, young and old). What about the civilian staff, secretaries, whatnot. The fact that there were warnings doesn't change it a bit, the terrorists accepted that there will be casualties. They also accepted civilians being killed in the process.

[vmarks]

Oh, two other thoughts.

OreoCookie: What's wrong with discussing the meaning of a word? Semantic means significant meaning. You think I'm quibbling when I set up what the definition is and then explain why certain events don't fit the definition, and deride it using the word semantics? That's the point of semantics, divining the significant meaning.

And it's important to do so, because when we don't, we arrive at Nicko's moral equivalence of equating freedom fighters with terrorists, which is false. Terrorists act with no regard at all for who their victims may be - freedom fighters target legitimate military targets. Terrorists aren't concerned with freedom or liberty, where freedom fighters absolutely are concerned with liberty. Not all revolutions have resulted in greater liberty: The Russian revolution, the Iranian revolution, these resulted in more oppression. The founding of Israel resulted in freedom for all who chose to take part. The people now calling themselves Palestinians rejected the Israeli pleadings to stay and build the future, and are the victims of their own bad choices.

Now Hamas, and by extension, the Palestinians who voted for them, wish to create a society that will strengthen oppression (see: Christians in Bethlehem and what Hamas did to them this past winter.)

So you see, we can discern who are terrorists and who are not. We don't have to swallow a false moral equivalency argument, when we can tell right from wrong. We can tell that oppressing non-Muslim religions is wrong (Hamas, HizbAllah) and we can tell that attacking shopping malls or ambushing cars travelling highways and shooting babies in child seats at point blank range is wrong. And we can say that attacking a legitimate military installation is at least an honorable way of conducting a war, but don't be surprised if it brings recriminations (HizbAllah, Hamas, who both thought that kidnapping soldiers would be a successful method of negotiating for a prisoner exchange. So much for the hope of that succeeding, and instead I doubt we see any more soldiers kidnapped in the future. See - diminishing the hope of success works.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, the extremists didn't target `combatants', they targeted an administrative complex with plenty of civilians (British, Jews, Arabs, men, women, young and old). What about the civilian staff, secretaries, whatnot. The fact that there were warnings doesn't change it a bit, the terrorists accepted that there will be casualties. They also accepted civilians being killed in the process.

Obviously, the military personnel were using the civilians as human shields, thereby making the civilians acceptable collateral damage. What's more, those civilians would have been supporting the military.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

targeting non-combatants is wrong, can you agree?

The king david hotel targeted combatants.

Next?

All 'sides' in the middle east have committed and continue to commit atrocities against each other. To deny this is nothing but propaganda. But continue to try to convince yourself that your country has the moral high-ground. It's a good way to ensure the conflict will last another 50 years.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

All 'sides' in the middle east have committed and continue to commit atrocities against each other. To deny this is nothing but propaganda. But continue to try to convince yourself that your country has the moral high-ground. It's a good way to ensure the conflict will last another 50 years.

There are very few in the Middle East who would like to see the conflict ended in any other way than pushing the other side into the sea.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There are very few in the Middle East who would like to see the conflict ended in any other way than pushing the other side into the sea.

Well, the dead sea is being drained (due to over utilization by surrounding coutries), perhaps when it is dried up in 50 or so years they could give the Palestinians that land.

Otherwise I agree. There are powerful interests on all sides at work that benefit by prolonging the conflict.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

OreoCookie: What's wrong with discussing the meaning of a word?

You picked a meaning, but we didn't somehow agree on one and the same meaning.
By the same token, it's not useful to sidetrack into the debate `terrorist vs. freedom fighter' -- which is subjective. (Do you think the British would have called the zionist resistance movement freedom fighters? Do you think they do that now?)

In the end, it's all the same and we end up arguing about the legitimacy of the goal, terrorist tactics are just one of the means by which to work toward the goal. In many instances, it has worked to some degree, especially if the demands aren't disproportionate to the benefits for the attacked (e. g. the British). People tend to dissociate themselves from unpleasant aspects of themselves, e. g. from the Palestinian perspective that Israelis have just the same right to live in peace as they do and vice versa. People tend to believe `no, we could never do that, we are better than that, we're different', but I don't subscribe to this point of view. The unwillingness to accept that we (as in human beings) are one and the same is the biggest road block to a permanent solution. As soon as blowing up an enemy is the same as blowing up your friends, things start to change. (If you think I'm dreaming, that's what happened in Europe in the last 60 years.) The other important two ingredients are: an equilibrium with your surroundings and to accept what has happened, i. e. what's done is done.

Also, I strongly disagree that any terrorist plot is `honorable'. There might be situations when it's necessary, but it's never honorable.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Terrorism is terrorism, there is no better kind of terrorism. They've used terrorism (`a different flavor') and got what they wanted.

I'm inclined to agree. I mean what is our primary objection to terrorism? Is it only that it targets nonmilitary targets or that it is violence instead of discourse? While the Zionists in the early 20th century may not have used tactics as reprehensible as Al Qaeda, they still used violence and intimidation to get what they wanted.

Obviously there are degrees, but the point seems to support what I've always thought (or for as long as I can remember) about the Israel-Palestine conflict: Both sides are so deep in blood and guilt that there's no point even talking about the past. Both sides just need to sit down and figure out how to live together. Obviously, the main impediment to that today is the fanatical belief in the Middle East that Israel should be wiped off the map.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I'm inclined to agree. I mean what is our primary objection to terrorism? Is it only that it targets nonmilitary targets or that it is violence instead of discourse? While the Zionists in the early 20th century may not have used tactics as reprehensible as Al Qaeda, they still used violence and intimidation to get what they wanted.

You're running into all kinds trouble here: what about the attack on the USS Cole? It's clearly a military target and (to me) it's clearly a terrorist act, even though it was a military target. The distinction is blurry.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Both sides just need to sit down and figure out how to live together. Obviously, the main impediment to that today is the fanatical belief in the Middle East that Israel should be wiped off the map.

I think there's a second important aspect missing: that Israel is not in equilibrium with its neighbors. Lasting stability depends on economic stability: and that's something that can't develop in the occupied territories, Gaza, the Westbank, but also in countries like Lebanon (which has caused multi-billion dollar damage to the local economy, not to mention that it swayed public opinion).

[Orion27]

I think one could successfully argue the World Trade Center was a military target as well. Terrorism is the classical approach of subduing populations. If push were to come to shove in war, terrorism would be weapon high on the list of options. Which puts us at a disadvantage in these low boil conflicts. The underdog feels compelled to employ terrorism out of desparation and we are bound by a modicum of civility to abstain from it.
Which brings us to the Powell Doctrine which is we are either prepared to use overwhelming force when decide to to go to war or we don't go to war. Vietnam was thought to have taught us that lesson. We didn't learn it and thus the situation in Iraq today. The Iraqi militias should have been buried with Sadam. We fought the war on the cheap and we are paying the price.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Obviously, the main impediment to that today is the fanatical belief in the Middle East that Israel should be wiped off the map.

I think both sides know pretty much what the final settlement is going to look like. What we need now are leaders to re-initiate the negotiations. This will happen after political normalisation amongst the Palestinians and new leadership in Israel and the US.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Which puts us at a disadvantage in these low boil conflicts. The underdog feels compelled to employ terrorism out of desparation and we are bound by a modicum of civility to abstain from it.

It sucks to be the good guys; either you stand up for what you believe in and fight a more difficult battle, or you sell yourself out and become as bad, or worse, than the bad-guys you are fighting against.

[Atomic Rooster]

Americans broke treaties with the Native Americans and slaughtered 20,000,000.

Does that count.

[Hawkeye_a]

The Egyptians enslaved the Jews and had them build the pyramids..... does that count ? I can play your game, and for every barbaric example you come up with i can come up with one more, and this can go back to the begininng of time. if you have a point, make it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Americans broke treaties with the Native Americans and slaughtered 20,000,000.

Does that count.

... and the Cheyenne took land from the Ute and slaughtered them. The Commanche took land from the Cheyenne and slaughtered them... of course none of this makes what we've done to Native Americans much more forgivable other than the fact that there's one Native American reservation 8 times the size of Israel. Human nature. Hell, nature in general. If the evil, Anglo-Euro white male was capable of this degree of charity, certainly we can expect our Arabic brethren to be a little more relenting on the Israeli issue.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The Egyptians enslaved the Jews and had them build the pyramids..... does that count ? I can play your game, and for every barbaric example you come up with i can come up with one more, and this can go back to the begininng of time. if you have a point, make it.

Man, you say that as if you're serious. Slaves never built the pyramids and it certainly wasn't the Jews.

History has failed you or you failed it.

My point for now.

[Hawkeye_a]

Oh ok, ill just take your word for it oh wise one. let me guess, the holocaust and inquisition are lies as well ? the exodus of the zorastrans, the slaughter of the armenians at Ararat, all just figments of my immigination. only you have knowledge of barbaric acts and that should determine the outcome of current conflicts.

Oh and listing a random barbaric act in history isnt a "point"(such as the indians and cowboys comment above). TThis thread is about ISrael and Iran. stay on topic and make your point.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Oh ok, ill just take your word for it oh wise one. let me guess, the holocaust and inquisition are lies as well ? the exodus of the zorastrans, the slaughter of the armenians at Ararat, all just figments of my immigination. only you have knowledge of barbaric acts and that should determine the outcome of current conflicts.

Oh and listing a random barbaric act in history isnt a "point"(such as the indians and cowboys comment above). TThis thread is about ISrael and Iran. stay on topic and make your point.

Sad, it's really sad. Educational system is going to shet. Looks like I struck a nerve and you just wanna duke it out.

First go back to school. Then we'll see who can piss farther. Right now you're pissing into the wind.

You're the one doing the derailing.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Man, you say that as if you're serious. Slaves never built the pyramids and it certainly wasn't the Jews.

History has failed you or you failed it.

My point for now.

I saw "Prince of Egypt"! There were Jewish slaves working on pyramids!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Man, you say that as if you're serious. Slaves never built the pyramids and it certainly wasn't the Jews.

History has failed you or you failed it.

My point for now.

You're right about us not building the pyramids:

Originally Posted by Exodus 1:11

So they appointed over them tax collectors to afflict them with their burdens, and they built store cities for Pharaoh, namely Pithom and Raamses. But as much as they would afflict them, so did they multiply and so did they gain strength, and they were disgusted because of the children of Israel.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I saw "Prince of Egypt"! There were Jewish slaves working on pyramids!

I'll cite the Ten Commandments as further evidence.

Oh, and Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat, too.