[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

False. My argument for Israel becoming a state AGAIN has nothing to do with it being a state earlier, though having a small portion of the land that was historically the homeland of the Jews is cool. My argument for Israel becoming a state was that the rightful owners (the U.K.) GAVE the land to the Jews to build a new homeland in a portion of their historical one.

Fuck that shit, the people who live in Palestine should be deciding what is happening to their homeland, whether they own it or not, not a country thousands of miles away. That is the whole point of the American Revolution, freedom from oppression, and then you justify the oppressive actions of colonization later on just because it works in your interests, bullshit. The people that were living in Palestine should have decided what happened, not the British.

This is unrelated to my reasons for supporting the legitimate state of Israel. But even so, the Indians did not ever own land. Indians didn't even believe land could be owned. They thought of land as a living organism that belonged to whatever god they happened to believe in.

Land can't be stolen from those who never owned it.

Just because they didn't own land in the European way doesn't mean they didn't have a right to live there. The fact is that people were living there for thousands of years and we kicked them out, whether the fit your bullshit definition of "owning" land or not, they still lived there.

And your views are wrong, just because some American Indians didn't believe that land could be owned doesn't mean all of them didn't. There were cultures much different than the plain Indian culture, which only occurred after European settlers came to North America by the way.

The so-called Palestinian people did not live there for 3,000 years

Oh really, then where did they come from?

Lets look at genetics:

Nebel et al. regard their findings in good agreement with historical evidence that suggest that "Part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD... These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistoric times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...al_populations

and most certainly NEVER owned any of the land. If I build a house on your land without your knowledge and live there for 40 years, I don't have any legitimate claim to your land.

What is your definition of owning land? And please back up your analogy, I'm calling bullshit on it. Show me where Palestinians built houses on land without someone's knowledge.

Also, your laughable claim that the Jews had moved away for 2,000 years is entirely false.

A lot of Jews living in that area moved away when the temple was destroyed, but no, not all of them moved away. Yet, most of the Jews or Christians converted to Islam, hence why Muslims were and are the majority from the 12th century to today.

Look at the second graph down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...y_demographics

I certainly support private property ownership. In fact, private property ownership is the foundation of all human rights.

Then why are justifying the action of kicking people out of their homes that they privately owned. You can say the British owned Palestine all you want but the fact is that individual Palestinians owned individual land and houses before Israel was created.

Your 1 in a thousand numbers are ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian people support the murder of Jews, and deny the right of Israel to exist. The number who been involved in planning, assisting, or carrying out attacks against Israeli Jews is closer to 2-5% than 1%.

This is controversial. I've heard that the majority of Palestinians want peace but can not do it with Israel pressing down on them. I can't find my source to back mine up but whatever. And just because they elected Hamas does not mean they support their views, Hamas was basically the only choice they had considering how corrupt and run down Fatah was.

The percentage is irrelevant though. Those who don't take part in the attacks shelter, and protect those who do. This makes them just as guilty as those doing it. The so-called Palestinian people are endangering their own people by hiding among them after attacking Jews.

How so? If you are talking about hospitals and schools that is a load of shit. Hamas and them run hospitals, schools, etc so you can't expect Palestinians to just avoid those places.

Peace would exist tomorrow if the so-called Palestinians would just stop killing Jews. The problem is they aren't interested in peace. They are only interested in killing Jews and wiping Israel off the map which will NEVER happen. Israel will be around even after America is gone.

I call bullshit on this. I guarantee that most Palestinians will be happy with a one-state solution, something Israel hasn't considered either. Also, just focusing on physical violence is very biased in this situation. Israel can hurt Palestinians without physical violence while Palestinians can not. Israel can punish Palestinians by flipping a switch, so directly comparing those two is very flawed.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But that's not the end of the story. After that, the Lakota people indoctrinated their children in hate and taught them to attack the white settlers with terror and assymetrical tactics.

And if America was taken over by communists and everything Americans once knew of was destroyed in the 1960s you think the same thing wouldn't happen?