Anyone who picks a side as a 'pure victim' with Israel and Hamas doesn't understand the full story.

How does your one-state solution handle the literal physical land space and human population in West Bank and Gaza?

One state of Israel, comprised of everyone in Israel and anyone who currently lives in what is known as the Palestinian territory. 

Probably better than the one-state solution the PLO proposes.

The Palestinian people should be allowed to be their own nation, not only because they were there first but because Israel's government and military have made crystal clear they don't see Palestinians as equal, worthy citizens to native Israelis. Therefore, both sides actually should support 2-state solution, the issue is right now neither wants to negotiate.

I am suprised that one side hasn't used nuclear weapons yet. There are 200 Russian nuclear suit case bombs that are missing. The radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today is on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth. It has no effect on human bodies. ... Residual radiation was emitted later. Roughly 80% of all residual radiation was emitted within 24 hours.

Because the PLO will only tolerate a one-state solution. Under their terms which means NO jews allowed.

Fuck the PLO.

Either that was a very poor taste joke or you are mentally disturbed. I don't find it amusing at all what you're suggesting. If Netanyahu does that, the world will not ever forgive him or Israel as a whole.

Hamas are terrorists that do not tolerate other religions. I do not accept a Hama run state and believe Israel should have full control if that is the case

Radical islamic groups kill Christians all over the middle east. I will not support a group of terrorist to run a state of terrorism

Israel is currently being led by people who fight and operate very similar to Hamas, I am not exaggerating when I say that.

Mossad more so than IDF.

I'm really not kidding when I say I will never support any "Palestinian" state.   And that stance has less to do with my feelings about Palestinians than with the civilizational risks of national self determination.  

@RM.

No, not correct. I've already explained this. Whether or not you accept the purchase of the land by David as still in force today, you certainly accept the occupation of Canaan when Israelites, and probably not all of them, migrated to Egypt during the famine around 1800 BCEm and Ishmaelite [Arab ancestors]. You may or may not accept the re-occupation 400 years later by the Israelites when they returned from Egypt [~1400 BCE]. David's purchase was a few generations later. When the Israelites were taken away in bondage to Babylon in 600 BCR, you probably accept the re- occupation by Ishmaelites, again. Same in the Crusades, concluding 13th century CE, occupying the land against Israelites and Europeans. Vut again, you do not accept the occupation by Jews, specifically, in 1967. 

So, how does you logic support occupation by Arabs, or their ancestors, but not Jews, nor their ancestors.

And before the Israelis it was cavemen of neither culture.

So... What entitles Israel to own West Bank, Gaza or even itself?

This isn't about spoilt brats feeling entitled to land based on ancestors, this is about hijacking a culture, invading a people's land and ruling in a corrupt, actually racist manner that is beyond something we can just turn a blind eye to and say is okay.

@RM

So, let's wipe history off the map, along with Israel, while were at it. Shades of being so hateful of Trump, his memory is eradicated by cancel culture, yeah? There never was a Trump. There was Oba'a, and Joe was so sleepy, he couldn't move to the WH for the following four years because he was hiding from Covid in his basement. Sure, makes perfect sense to an outside observer, wouldn't it?

I have read your opinion but not the whole thread. I've been very clear from the start that I tend to have a one-sided support of Israel. For better or worse, I make no compromises in my belief. Israel has a right to exist(and the right to evict) for the simple fact that the countries surrounding it are barbaric, inhumane and primitive. I've heard arguments that Jordan have liberal tendencies, but those tendencies are non-existent. The Arabs will squabble if not for Islam and Islam is not reformed like other abrahamic religions. If the ruling muslim liberals will continue to use Islam as a tool of obedience, I would still label the country as inhumane and barbaric. A westernized muslim rendered passive by his culture is useless.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate your perspective. I can certainly feel what it's like for a "western democracy" to pervert human rights. I see countries in a pyramid. I think the western countries occupy the top but I think it is impossible for them to maintain their position without indirectly terrorizing the base of the pyramid. Traditional US allies like Saudi Arabia would probably be placed somewhere in the middle. That said, the countries without western values are still barbaric (their positions in the pyramid do not matter). A quick example can be reasonably seen today. During the start of the crisis, I think almost all of the muslim countries' foreign ministers delivered statements which are outwardly anti-semitic and I think I'm not surprised that there aren't any jews in muslim countries. The asian muslim countries weren't outwardly anti-semitic but I should say that this is primarily due to their passive culture. Behind closed doors, I'm confident that they are as anti-semitic as the majority of muslims in the middle east (and elsewhere). Thus, as I understand the conflict, I'm throwing my full support behind israel because the only alternative to israel is a widespread anti-semitic culture that embraces inhumane values. These inhumane values are a huge threat to the sanctity of human rights.

The Arabs' failed offensive against Israel in the past was attributed to their disorganized military plan. If they failed to unite together in a war, I doubt they could unite in normal peace times.

Old-school Israel was as bad as Sharia Law on Human Rights and brutality (read the Talmud that is their version of Sharia Law, the Israelis who are truly pro-Netanyahu are almost always pro-Talmud). It's racist, cruel, sexist, homophobic and all of that. It literally is racist, that's not even an exaggeration, it says the Semitic descendants are superior to others, in God's eyes but despite this, Ethiopians (which are black Semites if you trace their roots) are often held beneath other Semites under Talmud rule so it's not even about religion or culture, it's literally the racial element of ethnicity that's the root thing at play.

Arabs are actually semitic as a race, however in the Talmud they ommited this and in application they ignored it entirely.

3400 years ago isn't the first place.

And land purchase is an assumption that handing over a wad of dosh somehow means you can own the Earth, whereas a homeland is where the foetus is dropped.

The actual difference between the two sides  is hypothetical ideology and the divergence thereof.

In terms of 3400 years ago the natives of the Arabian peninsula, were largely, one and the same.

And modern Israel survives thanks only to it's Big Bro across the Atlantic pond.

And all the lessons of the 1940's were largely forgotten in the 1950's.

The problem is neither Jewish nor Palestinian.....The problem is humanity, and it's ideologically contrived non-sense.

Or I should say, the ideologically contrived non-sense of a minority of zealots.

@RM

As is the case with most foreign policy issues. Most people don't realize how complex these conflicts really are. Multiple groups have somewhat valid claims to the same land and cannot stand to live with each other. 

Hamas is more or less a terrorist organization, but that doesn't give Israel a blank check to abuse all Palestinians that live in their region and force them out.

I have yet to see one nuanced politician on the matter. The few that aren't 100% pro-Israel are 100% anti-Israel.

I won't hide my disdain for religious laws. i've no recourse but to hide or parade myself in support of these laws whenever I'm back in my hometown. Clerics in my hometown are spewing constant anti-semitic hatred by using religion as a justification. An optimist may rely on the ulama but I'd argue the muslim scholars have no control over these hateful narratives. They have long faded into irrelevance ever since muslims started watching these clerics on Facebook live (and whatever trash these muslims are tuned on nowadays). Islam is the only religion that refuses to reform itself and while some reformation was seen during the proliferation of greek literature in medieval islam, I'm sure those record were permanently lost because of the aggressive nature of muslim fundamentalists. The muslim fundamentalists of today are no different from the past and they will continue to limit the spread of harmless ideas unless Islam reforms itself. I want to note that the christians are not innocent in this crisis, I found them and their veiled islamophobic tendencies equally obnoxious. Their continued presence in muslim countries contribute to the lack of reformation in islam.

Do you honestly think that this somewhat intersects with what Israel is facing within its borders? I doubt that. So no, I disagree with your opinion. Israel isn't necessarily the villain by virtue of its more islamophobic citizens.

That may be the case in your homeland [I honestly don't know], but here in the USA, it is well known, by some, that the notion of birthright citizenship violates the 14A. Yeah, the Supreme Court stuck their nose in it in 1895, and screwed that pooch, but they were incorrect then, and still are. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." is a phrase in the 14A completely ignored by the Supreme Court, then, [I don't think they understood what it meant] and it is still ignored. But, the Constitution should not be subject to the jurisdiction of ignorant removal of words.

In the case of Israel and the West Bank, birthright was a big thing, too, and the birthright was given to Isaac, not Ishmael, and to Jacob [Israel], not Esau.

i actually agree with this, both sides commit awful acts and the US doesnt need to get involved

Exactly. USA doesn't involve itself with the UK's struggle with the IRA...why is Israel different? Oh yeah...oil...

well its not oil when it comes to Israel, the two major factors are the lobby group and the popular support for Israel, AIPAC is massive and almost every politician goes to its conferences, secondly, Israel, somehow, has religious significance to evangelicals. The religious connection makes no sense but its a good enough lie to prop up massive support for the country even if Israel discriminants against Christians and supports azerbajain, a anti christian muslim state that has bombed churches.

It did provide assistance and diplomatic support to Britain BUT it punished groups that donated to the IRA like NORAID and various other irish american groups, while pro-israel groups never gets punished if it hurted americas diplomacy.

I get it. That is exactly the correct interpretation of the 14A, but SCOTUS blew it all to hell with their 1898 decision in Wong v. U.S., [I misspoke earlier dating it in 1895] creating birthright citizenship precedent.

Palestine is a totalitarian government as well. It’s no better than what Israel does

"misspoke"

One of those words that never quite looks right.

More suggestive of a missed poke,  than speaking incorrectly.