>implying they weren't shooting rockets since 1948

Remember in 2005 when there was a unilateral withdrawal from palestine and no blockade, no walls, no nothing and the pallies STILL launched rockets?

>implying pallies didn't wage multiple attempts to completely eradicate Israel and just sucks at war.
>implying pallies actually owned the land rather than just being stateless tenants who boycotted the ******* UN meeting that would partition it.
>implying Israel didn't expand more than 100% of its original borders upon conquering sinai and almost the Suez, but then gave all that **** back in exchange for peace with Egypt (and since then has had no conflict with Egypt).

As for the whole "always blockaded", citation pls. I coulda sworn the blockade began in 2007.

Ah fair enough, 2007 vs. late 2006... but there was more than a year with no naval blockade and ONLY a no fly zone. Is that no fly zone really worth the thousands of rockets that the pallies fired?

I finally won something, ma :')

Why even have hair at that stage? Like just shave or wear a wig.

I think it would depend on how their face looks.

Charles Dance is on a similar level of hair loss and he looks great.

I love you for this

you are right jew, the problem are the immigrants, that means you

So let them have Israel so they can quit being immigrants in your country :I

why? they are of khazar etnicity, they should stay in the jewish state in the russian federation

>The Jewish state of Russia

Top kek :^)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

come home chosen man

Jews make up 0.2% of the pop there. Pffft.

so? its the only place you are welcome and not a smelly stinkin immigrant

both of those are wrong. the only muslim problem europe had were rousy marocans in belgium and netherland adn turks in germany. The refugee crisis i our own fault

Israel can not be treated as our equel if it isn't

Israel shouldn't be there in the first place.
I ******* hate immigrants, but even I understand that the palestinian people got their land unfairly stolen.

...except you know... the fact that it is literally the most central part of their religion.

It's like saying if Christianity had conquered mecca that the muslims would be "stealing land that isn't theirs" if they managed to convince the UN to let them reclaim mecca.

And? Who gives a **** about their religion?
I hate to sound like a fedora-fag, but if their only claim on that land is religion and that they used to own it, then they have no legitimate claim on that land.

Muslims also regard Jerusalem as a holy place, so that's the problem.

The Palestinians also have a legitimate claim on the land.

They should just be buddy and live together, seriously.

(there are a metric ********* of muslims compared to Jews. If they had one state it would just become a muslim state. That's kinda the root of the problem with the 1 state solution.)

Yeah but they're humans, it'll never happen.

You can't empathize for individuals who have different values from yourself?

Literally the equivalent of Mecca for the Jews. You can understand how important Mecca is to Islam right? They literally pray in the direction of Mecca several times a day. Well Jews pray towards the Temple wall three times a day.

You can't just ignore that kind of cultural significance because "lol religion doesn't entitle you to **** ".

So what?
Do you even know why the crusades happened?
We don't own jerusalem either so what's the big deal?
Not to mention the fact that jerusalem is a holy stie for muslims, christians and jews alike

The crusades happened because the pope was tired of second sons of christian lords who stood to inherit nothing going around killing peasantry. He sent them to the middle east where hopefully they'd either die or claim more land for Christendom.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "we don't own jerusalem either"?

It is a holy site for sure, but between the three religions, it is most definitely the most important to Judaism. Look at our respective bibles. Israel is mentioned hundreds of times in the old testament but barely at all in the new testament or the Quran. Heck, Christianity abandoned the old promise! They opted for the whole planet to be their promised land as opposed to just Israel. Islam did a very similar thing. But for the Jews? There is only one land the Jews want. A tiny strip of land the size of New Jersey.

But no... No that's not allowed. God forbid the Jews be allowed sovereignty over the most central part of their religion. A land so ******* central to their religion that when they were exiled they needed to completely reconstruct religious observance because most of their religious rituals REQUIRED access to the Temple (which the muslims so courteously built their own temple on top of).

Seriously, bud. I don't know how else to emphasize just how bloody important this land is to the Jews.

By that argument you could say the jews are entitled to this

>places that they visted =/= places they were promised, bruh.

That being said, you should be happy they only care for the area that was actually settled for the ancient Israeli kingdom.

I mean, you can argue for more land, but the Jews aren't gonna be greedy ^_^ If you let 'em keep what they have they'll be more than happy.

Then why did they annex the gaza strip?
If they were happy with their land why would they want more
call me anti semitic but is there any other justification for their anexation of the gaza strip of not wanting more land?

uhhh because of wars? Like... they annexed the sinai too. If they hadnt annexed the sinai they would have lost the 6 day war.

If no one was trying to kill them they wouldnt annex ****

What does that have to do with anything, I mean this isn't 19th century politics you shouldn't just annex land like that just because they attack you, otherwise they will want to keep attacking you and more conflict will spread.

...the idea is you annex it until they agree to cooperate. Worked with Egypt. Still waiting for the pallies to wisen up.

Doesn't always work.
Remember the Franco Prussian war?
Prussia annexed Alsasce Lorraine.
After Germany lostt the great war, the french were mad and boy they not only anexed the strip of land back but also demanded a HUGE amount of reparations

So what would you prefer? That Israel bend over and let itself be ****** ?

Or keep the status quo and demand money to repair the damages of the war.

>keep the status quo

If things stay as they are, that will solve nothing. The pallies don't be placated with money :I

They could also solve this the american way and with some help if necessary install friendly governments around their neighbors. It's not that hard and boom problem solved

>install governments

jesus man... do you know how often that his bit us? Remember when we installed the shah?! Iran will be ****** up for decades yet to come because of than.

That means they will be too weak to do anything to israel but you could also install a competent friendly government which the US doesn't do because they want the oil while Israel would simply want the wars to stop

People are meant to control religion, not the other way around.
Are we to all tear down farms, roads, and cities because Native Americans believe no one is to own land? No, that's ******* stupid, even if it is the entirety of their system of beliefs.

Are we not entitled to America just because we took it from the natives?

Don't bring america into the discussion cause goodness knows America has no place lecturing Israel on colonialism. Tu quoque, my friend.

That aside, the religion isn't controlling anyone. It's just ascribing significance to the location. You know, kinda like how you ascribe emotional significance to your 2 dimensional wife! ^_^

If the natives managed to make a case for reclaiming their lost land to the powers that be (which they have done on several occasions) then there's nothing wrong with them reclaiming the land. The pallies are just salty that boycotting the UN meetings didn't work out for them.

>posting as anon

America bought land from people who had no idea what was going on.
Israel was given land, taken from people who owned it, and had no idea their land was being given away by people with no claim on the land.

Incorrect. Israel purchased a large portion of its land from the Palestinians who gave zero ***** about the swamps they owned title deeds to under the Ottomen. Eventually the Arab powers got annoyed with this, being afraid of losing islamic homogeneity in the region. Ottoman empire collapses, and I'm not altogether certain whether their title deeds under Ottoman rule were still valid under the British occupation, thus making all of the land British between WWI and WWII. At this time, to try to stop the Jews from establishing a majority in the region there was a massive immigration of Arabs to the region.

After WWII the UN made quite a big show of the partition plan. Everyone was invited but THE ARAB COUNTRIES BOYCOTTED BECAUSE THEY DENIED BRITAIN'S POWER TO MAKE THESE LAND DIVISIONS. Funny how they had no issue with the rest of the Middle east being partitioned by conquering Europeans, but when there's an issue of recognizing a state that is homogenously muslim, suddenly it's an affront to their sensitivities.

There was never supposed to be an expulsion of the Palestinians. The independence war is what led to it. The Arab powers in the regions surrounding Israel effectively told the pallies to get the **** outta dodge while they tore Israel a new anus. The Pallies all left but found that their arab friends failed to win the war and thus they could not return (as they were considered to be aiding and abetting the attackers). Some pallies stayed behind and while villages were chased out during the independence war, many were not. Those Palestinians became Israeli Arabs, the most well treated Muslims in the entirety of the middle east.


Tl;dr: Israel bought land too. The pallies weren't ignorant little lambs, many were actually political immigrants. The land wasn't theirs either. They were just inhabiting it. Technically they were under the sovereignty of Britain.

Pic is some israeli satire
But;
Jordan, Syria, Iran and Egypt all worked against Israel and with the PLO existing in Palestine, yet Israel persisted through some fierce wars and gave back some conquored land after the wars, and still, we think the israelis stole their own harshly conquored soil.

>>#20

Most Israelis are ******* fourth and fifth generation, they have every right to live there now. It is their home. The case is entirely different with new settlements, another scenario, another argument. But Israel does have a right to defend itself against Hamas.
If you care about the rights of the Palestinians, like I do, then you are forced, compelled, to admit that both sides are wrong. The Zionist wing of Israel, Netanyahu, needs to go, as does Hamas. It is Hamas and Zionists fighting, Israelis and Palestinians are the victims.

How far back can we reclaim stolen goods then, buddy? Should the Brits ask the United States for their land back because conflict took it away from the empire? How about all the French land the British took in Canada? Should the French be given that back, too, because the Canadians have inherited a "stolen" good?

You can't compare nations and huge masses of land to regular property. It's a ******* idiotic train of thought to use. Legally speaking, Israel technically owns the land they were originally given. The new settlements are a matter of debate, not the land that was handed to them by the UN.

The entire world has been divided through war and disputes. Europe is probably the region which has seen most war and countries torn apart or united (like Bismarck did in Germany)

Krim peninsula ( I suppose this means Crimea, right? Can't look it up right now) might be ethnically Russian, but it is Ukrainian soil, hence the property of the sovereign state of the Ukraine. I said before that a people, as in an ethnic group, don't have right to land, individuals, however, do. The Krim might be Russian ethnically, but not nationally. Huge distinction. Same logic regarding Tibet. The people might be of Tibetan ancestry and speak Tibetan languages, but it is Chinese soil. I don't recognize Tibet, it is Chinese soil. The last thing we need is another chunk of land being fought over for religious reasons. **** the Dalai Lama, murderous cunt. Regarding Nevada and California I don't understand. Maybe they are Mexicans ethnically, but they are Americans by nationality, hence California and Nevada continues to be American soil. If the Mexicans are American citizens or some deal was made, I don't see a problem with them living there. Americans have it easier than the rest, because Americans are not plagued with this nonsensical idea, that ethnicities need a national state. Anyone can become an American, but I, even though I live in Denmark, can never become a Dane. Ethno-nations are a failure.
Mallorca is just whining if you ask me. Sure, Mallorca might have a majority of people of German background, but Spanish law still applies, it is Spanish land and the Spaniards can do what they want with it.

I firmly and respectfully disagree.
Fourth or fifth, they are children of invaders, oppressing, unwanted immigrants.
Israel, and they Jews living in it has no reason, nor right to be there.
Descendants of the settlers are almost equally oppressive to the native population as the settlers themself.

You have to be ******* joking. Would you deport the Australians, the Germans, the Americans, the entirety of Latin America back to Europe? Would you move all Arabs from North Africa back into the Middle East? Would you deport every single Asian, Negro, Middle-Easterner and Indo-Aryan from Europe to their countries of ethnic origin? The sum of Turkic Central Asia back to Eurasia? All peoples have at some point moved; if you are going start this circle, you have no end. It is the very barbaric core of a racial mindset. Peoples don't have a home, individuals do.

Then you are ******* stupid. That'll cause more traffick and chaos for a longer period of time, than a friday rush hour in Shanghai.

The Israeli kind of started a conflict down there, and if they where removed, there would PROBABLY be less conflict down there than there currently is.

So by removing israel, the us would spend less money on giving them wepons and economic support, and the palestinians would have something to call home that isn't blasted by rockets every 3 days.

If I could go back in time, I would push Herzl of a cliff, that is for sure. But that is approximately a hundreds years ago, you can't blame subsequent generations for that. And no, removing Israel now is both ethically abominable and a recipe for disaster. Israel is bordered to many unstable and theocratic states and groups. Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon would all seek opportunistic enterprises on defenseless soil. Hezbollah and Hamas would try to defend (while rivaling one another, Hamas is Sunni while Hezbollah is Shi'ite), in order to establish a Jihadist state.
If you care about the Palestinians, you need to kill and eliminate Hamas first. Netanyahu should be tried for war crimes, but Israeli treatment of Israeli Arabs is considerable better than what Hamas would have done if they could. You can't honestly believe Arab non-Palestinian sympathy for the Palestinians, they'd be killed as soon as either Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran or ISIS got hold of them.
It is unethical, because these Israelis have lived there for too long now, it is simply not moral to remove people from their homeland generation gone by.
To blame the Middle East failure on Israel is frivolous. The ME is in its current state because of a failed Islamic civilization, that cannot blame itself for its downfall, so it has to blame the prosperous and superior West. Take Israel out of the picture, historically and contemporary, nothing will change. Just another barren soil in the ME area that jihadists will be fighting over.

So you are saying that because it has been a while and nobody dindu nuffin, it is too late to fix mistakes? It isn't ethically wrong to move a people that has been on the move for 2000 years after they haven't even been in a spot for 70 years yet. And didn't both hamas and hezbolla fight FOR the palastinians? On a sidenote, i do not like or favor terrorists. So wouldn't they be more on the protective side of the palastinians, than against it? And isn't there a lot palestinians in those organisations, that would leave to defend they home state?

And why are you so against moving the israeli? They had/have only one right to be there, and that is for religious reasons.

I just told you I hate Zionism and think Netanyahu should be tried for war crimes. Take a look at my profile, I hate religions of all kinds. Is it unethical to remove people who have been living there for 70 years? Is that a question? Yes, the answer is yes Don't get me wrong. If I could, I'd change the flag of Israel, make it a completely secular state, ban any discrimination on race, celebrate both its Jewish and Arab history, make Hebrew, Arabic and English official languages. As I said, if I could, I would push Herzl of a cliff. If you don't know who he is, look it up, he is the founder of Zionism, and has brought us nothing but misery since. . Do you want to kick out every non-White European out of Europe too? Every Turkic country that was, against its will, consumed into the Soviet Union and russified, should the descendants of these people get out of Russia? The Israelis now, are the descendants of the original settlers, by several generations. They have done nothing wrong, except being born from the wrong vagina and. Would it be fine to kick out the Pilgrim in the 18th century, after North America had been their home for decades? People don't have a right to land, individuals do.

Regarding Hamas and Hezbollah I must laugh at your comment. Hamas has dedicated itself to impose Sharia on the Palestinians. Their charter has the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in it, a Russian Orthodox Jew-baiting fabrication. They have stated they want Palestine Judenrein, they want to kill all Shias and Christians (the Arabs). They are already using much more horrible strategies of war than Israel is, including children as human shields, firing missiles from civilians areas, deliberately. They have thrown gays of roof-tops and have waged war against the West. It is actively killing off its political rival, fighting to get Palestinians statesmanship.
Hezbollah, a Syrian-Iranian, sponsored Shi'a jihadist organization, successfully reduced the former democracy of Lebanon into a war zone. Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, used to be known as the Paris of the East, it was a beautiful fusion of Occident and Orient customs. Hezbollah would be fighting Hamas over a Shia vs. Sunni theocracy in Palestine, both parties killing as many as civilians as possible, because they don't ******* care for civilians, Israel in a very weird way actually does.

Why compare several centuries and a couple of decades? And why would it be wrong to move the israeli to a better place that isn't in a ******* warsone? You are saying it like they don't want to move and it is un-ethicall, while they have to fight of civilians that are getting used as human shields.

It would be less conflict in that area if you'd have switched out israeli with palestinians, but that does not mean there would be no conflict.

In reverse order: it would be more of a war zone, because jihadists cannot fight Israel sufficiently, but they can easily destroy and humiliate Palestinian civilians. If you think the battle is over when Hamas control Palestinians territories, you are wrong. They'd install Sharia and commit war crimes worse than the entirety of Israel's history. I don't see how Israel is guilty of Hamas using civilians as human shields, the blame there is without the shadow of a doubt on Hamas.

Centuries and decades, I really don't see much of a difference. After all, Indians have lived more than millenia in North America, while the settlers only have lived there for a few centuries. Both Israel in Palestine and settlers in North America have created a functional society and a legitimate culture, they have a right to be there. You can play around with metric units all you want, the problem remains the same: is it okey, to forcibly move people from an area they have called home since birth, their parents' birth and perhaps even their grandparents' birth?
Thanks for keeping it civil so far. It is very rare when discussing Israel-Palestine (which I think ought to be the proper name for it).

You hit the nail on the head.

notice how we didnt shoot any rockets tho