Israel / Palestine News Thread

[zazen]

14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

If I lived in Barcelona on the verge of starvation and without shoes, and the Catalonian came to administer my lands, previously administered by some Muslim with an IQ of 50, and those Catalonian brought wealth, prosperity, technology and evolution, and they promise me that I can keep the property of my land, I would tell them that if they needed a blowjob, let me know.

And your telling me not to humiliate myself? Haha.

 

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@zazen @zazen 

I think you misunderstood. They would retain 100% of the territory, meaning no Palestinian would have been expelled from their lands. Furthermore, they would have gained a state administering 45% of Palestine, something they've never done throughout history, since they were always colonized. 

They would have simply shared administration of the country with the Jews, which would have provided enormous advantages.

It seems difficult for you to understand the situation. They started with violence over a matter of religious identity, and they remain the same, like in the Middle Ages. They are incapable of evolving. And all the mentally retarded people in the West say "Free Palestine," without knowing that Palestinians are not free; they are slaves to their Muslim identity, just like 16 billion other, let's say not specially smart people.

 

56 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Please, don't humiliate yourself anymore.

If I lived in Barcelona on the verge of starvation and without shoes, and the Catalonian came to administer my lands, previously administered by some Muslim with an IQ of 50, and those Catalonian brought wealth, prosperity, technology and evolution, and they promise me that I can keep the property of my land, I would tell them that if they needed a blowjob, let me know.

I understand your logic. You Muslims are victims, and it's right that you commit massacres and declare war after war because your pride, and when you loose all those wars stay crying a century and commiting terrorist attacks. Well, with people like that, there's only one language: the one being spoken now. Even donkeys understand that.

 

51 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The Spanish were ruled by the Romans without any problems. They didn't spend all day crying. In fact, they thought it was a positive thing. Then they were ruled by the Arabs, and the same thing happened, without spending all day committing attacks. Everything was fine, until they declared war on them. They won and expelled the Arabs. If they had lost, they would have been Arabs and wouldn't have spent 300 years crying and stabbing Arabs. Otherwise, they would have been exterminated, which is what happens to the mentally retarded who can't accept reality.

And btw, the war that the Spanish and french declared to the Arabs was a religious war. The reason of that war was expelling the Islam . It's the same that the war that the Muslim countries have now with Israel. The difference is that the Spanish were in the 10 century, and the Muslims in the 21, with the same ideas

The argument presented is riddled with historical inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies that fundamentally undermine its credibility. For instance, the claim that Palestinians would have retained "100% of the territory" under the 1947 UN Partition Plan is blatantly false. The plan proposed the division of Mandatory Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with roughly 55% of the land allocated to the Jewish state and 45% to the Arab state, despite Jews owning only about 7% of the land at the time and making up about one-third of the population. Moreover, Jerusalem was to be placed under international administration. The plan was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by Arab leaders, not purely out of religious dogma but due to what they saw as an unfair partition. It’s also factually incorrect to say Palestinians had never administered the land; local Arab populations had varying degrees of administrative authority under Ottoman and British rule, and the absence of a sovereign "Palestinian state" does not equate to total historical political passivity.

Furthermore, the writer's portrayal of Palestinians and Muslims as “mentally retarded” or incapable of evolution is not only dehumanizing and bigoted, but it also flies in the face of historical reality. The Islamic world was a center of intellectual, scientific, and cultural development during the European Dark Ages, with major contributions in mathematics, medicine, philosophy, and architecture—advancements that were later adopted by Europeans. The suggestion that Muslims are inherently violent or primitive ignores centuries of peaceful coexistence and the complex political, economic, and colonial contexts that fuel modern conflicts. The comparison to Spanish history is similarly flawed. The author claims that the Spanish didn't "spend all day crying" after losing to the Arabs, ignoring centuries of warfare (i.e., the Reconquista), forced conversions, the Spanish Inquisition, and expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain—none of which supports the notion of peaceful acceptance of conquest. Historical parallels are misused to prop up a supremacist narrative.

Finally, the statement that Muslim nations are waging a religious war against Israel due to pride is a gross oversimplification. The Arab-Israeli conflict stems from a complex interplay of colonialism, nationalism, displacement, military occupation, and competing historical narratives—not merely religious intolerance. Many secular Arab movements (e.g., the PLO under Arafat) led resistance efforts, and peace deals have been signed with countries like Egypt, Jordan, and more recently several Gulf states—hardly evidence of a monolithic religious crusade. The use of crude analogies (e.g., “blowjob” in exchange for progress) and disparaging comments about intelligence demonstrates a lack of intellectual discipline and an inability to engage in civil, fact-based discourse. Ultimately, the person presenting these views appears driven more by prejudice and emotional vitriol than by a genuine interest in historical truth or constructive analysis, and their arguments should not be regarded as credible or trustworthy.

Given the tone, content, and reasoning displayed, this person should feel embarrassed, not proud, of their political and historical views and their choice to share them publicly. What they have expressed is not only incorrect and offensive, but dangerously dismissive of human suffering and historical complexity. Pride in such views reflects not confidence in truth but comfort in ignorance. Sharing them reveals a desire not to inform or persuade through reason, but to provoke or dominate through insult. That is not the mark of someone well-informed or principled—it’s the mark of someone still in need of significant moral and intellectual growth.

Edited Friday at 12:05 AM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Raze said:

Finally, the statement that Muslim nations are waging a religious war against Israel due to pride is a gross oversimplification. The Arab-Israeli conflict stems from a complex interplay of colonialism, nationalism, displacement, military occupation, and competing historical narratives—not merely religious intolerance.

Muslim nations couldn't care less about the many other, worse conflicts occurring in the Muslim world. Only this one seems important to them, and it's for identity reasons.

A century ago, this was, let's say, inevitable, but now they should evolve, and they are. Indonesia already says it's necessary to accept Israel. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates are also on that same page. And soon, everyone except the Islamist clowns in the line of the Muslim Brotherhood like Turkey, Iran, and Qatar will do so. Islamism, not Islam, islamism, is a plague, and must dissapear from this world. Then Islam could be just a religion, not a political system . We are in XXI century, not in X. 

And why will they do it, accepting Israel? Because of the strength that Israel has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate.

So, why is Israel's attitude in Gaza so wrong, if it's the only one its neighbors respect?

Edited Friday at 07:30 AM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

@zazen come to the real world. Israel is the best thing that could have happened to the Palestinians and the Middle East in general. They can't continue living in the Middle Ages, stoning adulterers, hanging gays, and killing blasphemers in the 30th century.

When we open interdimensional portals and communicate with alien civilizations, what would happen if one of them drew a picture of Muhammad? Have you thought about that? An intergalactic war! That would be terrible!

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Muslim nations couldn't care less about the many other, worse conflicts occurring in the Muslim world. Only this one seems important to them, and it's for identity reasons.

A century ago, this was, let's say, inevitable, but now they should evolve, and they are. Indonesia already says it's necessary to accept Israel. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates are also on that same page. And soon, everyone except the Islamist clowns in the line of the Muslim Brotherhood like Turkey, Iran, and Qatar will do so. Islamism, not Islam, islamism, is a plague, and must dissapear from this world. Then Islam could be just a religion, not a political system . We are in 21 century, not in X. 

And why will they do it? Because of the strength that Israel has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate.

So, why is Israel's attitude in Gaza so wrong, if it's the only one its neighbors respect?

The most striking issue with the reply is its failure to address the key criticisms in the original response—namely, historical inaccuracies, dehumanizing language toward Palestinians and Muslims, and the misuse of historical analogies like the Spanish under Roman and Arab rule. The rebuttal correctly pointed out that the claim Palestinians would retain “100%” of their land under the 1947 UN Partition Plan is false, and that Palestinian resistance is not purely religious. Rather than correcting these errors, the reply pivots to modern geopolitics and Israel’s strength, avoiding accountability for earlier claims.

This rhetorical redirection—a common tactic when a position can't be defended—replaces the original bigotry with a "realpolitik" narrative: that Israel's strength has forced Muslim nations to evolve. While some elements of this are true, they don’t excuse the initial prejudiced framing. Instead, they reflect a refusal to engage honestly with the issues or confront personal bias.

The reply does note that Arab countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and possibly Saudi Arabia are normalizing ties with Israel—driven largely by economic interests, regional threats like Iran, and U.S. influence. However, the author presents this trend in a simplistic, triumphalist tone, attributing it solely to Israeli strength and suggesting Arabs are “evolving” only in response to power.

Historically, this claim is flawed. Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War victory did not lead to normalization—it triggered greater hostility. The Arab League’s “Three No’s” (no peace, no recognition, no negotiations) came immediately afterward. Far from gaining respect, Israel’s military dominance intensified resistance and solidified Arab rejection. The war also deepened the Palestinian refugee crisis, fueling nationalist and militant responses.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War further disproves the idea that military strength alone leads to peace. Egypt and Syria attacked to reclaim land lost in 1967. Though Israel repelled them, real change came only through diplomacy—specifically, the Camp David Accords—when Israel withdrew from the Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt. This undermines the idea that brute force alone brings regional acceptance.

The author also contradicts themselves by blaming Palestinians and the Muslim world for violence, while ignoring how military occupation and the Gaza blockade—made possible by Israeli force—create conditions that breed radicalization. Praising the military strength that fosters such conditions, while condemning the resulting violence, is logically inconsistent.

The rhetorical question—“Why is Israel’s attitude in Gaza so wrong if it's the only one its neighbors respect?”—is especially troubling. It suggests that morality is determined by strength, implying that violence is justified if it commands respect. This outlook ignores the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, civilian casualties, and credible war crime allegations. Respect built on fear is not the same as justice or legitimacy.

Ultimately, the reply reflects a shallow understanding of history and a dangerously utilitarian worldview. It reduces complex political dynamics to a binary of "evolved" versus "backward" societies, glorifies power over ethics, and fails to engage in honest, critical discourse. Rather than growth, the response reveals intellectual evasion and ideological rigidity. The moral development of the person in question, based on their comments and responses, resembles that of someone in the early adolescent stage, despite likely being an adult. Their moral reasoning remains stunted. It prioritizes strength over justice, conformity over conscience, and victory over empathy—markers of someone whose moral development is comparable to that of a preteen or early teenager still navigating the difference between rules, consequences, and ethical principles.

 

Edited Friday at 06:27 AM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

The rebuttal correctly pointed out that the claim Palestinians would retain “100%” of their land under the 1947 UN Partition Plan is false,

 

🔹 If the Palestinians Had Accepted the UN Partition Plan, Would They Have Kept Their Land?

Yes — that is one of the most tragic and paradoxical points in the entire conflict.
If the Palestinians had accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, they would have retained legal and actual ownership of their lands, even inside the territory assigned to the Jewish state.

1. Land situation before 1947

At the end of the British Mandate, Jews owned only about 6–7% of all land in Palestine.

Most of the land belonged to Arab families or absentee landlords, especially from Syria and Lebanon.

Jewish settlements were concentrated in Tel Aviv, Haifa, and a few kibbutzim in the north.

2. The 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181)

The plan did not divide territory according to current ownership, but rather according to population distribution and future needs.

The Jewish state was assigned about 55% of the territory, but within that area lived around 400,000 Arabs and about 500,000 Jews.

The resolution explicitly guaranteed that Arabs remaining in the Jewish state would keep their properties and full civil rights.

It also provided for an international compensation mechanism for any land that might have to be transferred.

3. What would have happened if the Arabs had accepted it

There would have been no war, and thus no exodus or confiscations.

Arab Palestinians would have kept their homes, farms, and businesses, with property rights protected under international supervision.

The proposed Arab state would have received immediate recognition and foreign aid.

Mixed areas such as Jerusalem would have been placed under international administration, with no exclusive control by either side.

4. What actually happened

The Arab League rejected the plan and launched a war to prevent the creation of Israel.

During the 1948 war, over 700,000 Arabs fled or were expelled, and their properties were seized under Israel’s Absentees’ Property Law.

Those who remained inside Israel (about 160,000 people) kept their citizenship and much of their land; they are today’s Arab Israelis.

The refugees and their descendants — now more than five million — were never allowed to return.

5. Conclusion

If the Palestinians had accepted the partition plan,
they would have retained nearly half of the land of Mandatory Palestine,
their property within the Jewish state would have remained theirs,
and a Palestinian state would have existed since 1948.

 

Edited Friday at 08:36 AM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

Their moral reasoning remains stunted. It prioritizes strength over justice, conformity over conscience, and victory over empathy—markers of someone whose moral development is comparable to that of a preteen or early teenager still navigating the difference between rules, consequences, and ethical principles

I simply think the Palestinians should have adapted to the changing times and evolved instead of glorifying martyrdom and doing nothing constructive. Living with people like that is impossible; it's a sure war.

Your opinion is that Israel should bow to these mentally ill people; mine is that they shouldn't.

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall So people are mentally ill and retarded for resisting displacement or loss of control?

You’re using wordplay to deflect from the main issue - by saying they’d still be on the land even if it’s just within a Jewish state. Well, any remaining Ukrainians will still be in the Donbass after Russia has annexed it from Ukraine - so it’s cool?

It’s like me saying you no longer own your house and are now a tenant who rents it - but technically your still in the house so its fine? Note - you’re IN the house, it’s not YOUR house anymore. But don’t worry - I’m a great landlord and won’t hike your rent too much papi.

You said you’d blow a superior people to benefit from their development. Would you whore yourself out to be under Alien rule with their superior development? Humans have a soul and certain dignity to themselves not tied simply to the material world.

Majority of humans have fought for self-determination regardless of the “other” who may determine the outcome of their lives better - hence the entire anti-colonial struggle. Your framework just sells your soul to the highest bidder. When the Chinese are ahead of the West in the next decades invite them to rule you and suck them off too as you’ve said you’ll do.

Edited Friday at 09:06 AM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

So people are mentally ill and retarded for resisting displacement or loss of control?

He understands well his society 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

You said you’d blow a superior people to benefit from their development. Would you whore yourself out to be under Alien rule with their superior development? Humans have a soul and certain dignity to themselves not tied simply to the material world.

Shit you have the heart of a lion, You are right, if an alien society comes and says that this galactic sector is under their jurisdiction, but that I will continue to retain my properties, I will have citizen status and they will also bring technology that will make me immortal, I will say: no!!!!! in the name of Muhammad I will educate my children to commit suicide since nothing is more terrible than not being sovereign! I want to be subjected to an retarded Spanish dictator! Only he can sodomize me and put me in jail for 25 years for a comment on Instagram!!

But they're not aliens. They're Jews who've lived in that land for 3,000 years. There's always been a Jewish presence, and when Israel was founded, there were half a million living there. They didn't oppress or steal. They brought wealth and prosperity, openness and vitality. Why don't collaborate and grow together as a society? Maybe because Muslims don't want to grow, just go to paradise?

Listen this Muslim, he's smart 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNxiSB52NbW/?igsh=bG1qNm44ZG1oaGc4

Edited Friday at 09:50 AM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall But then how do you explain the entire anti-colonial struggle? Were they stupid to do that? Your basically a imperial boot licker and pro-colonialism.

Let's say people don't care for sovereignty and would trade some for development and glory - ok fine. But if I accept that false premise - what development were the Jews bringing at THAT time? It's not like it was the British Empire saying we're going to build a state so you can enjoy our glory - it was a persecuted, powerless and stateless people. The only lesson Western Europeans taught in fact was that these same people were trouble makers which is the reason for their persecution.

It's like me saying your stupid for not investing in Bitcoin in its early days. Your hindsight logic to justify something unjust falls flat on its face.

According to you - Palestinians should have accepted partition because of development that didn't exist yet, based on evidence they didn't have, from refugees of a people Europe had just tried to exterminate for causing trouble in their own lands (anti-Semitic nonsense) but that they somehow wouldn't in Palestinians?

You need a siesta to gain some clarity and think through your arguments - maybe this afternoon. Thick taco you are lol I still love you though.

Edited Friday at 09:57 AM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, zazen said:

According to you - Palestinians should have accepted partition because of development that didn't exist yet, based on evidence they didn't have, from refugees of a people Europe had just tried to exterminate for causing trouble in their own lands (anti-Semitic nonsense) but that they somehow wouldn't in Palestinians?

The Palestinians weren't a state; they were tribal settlers of a territory. They shared that territory with Jews and Christians. Half a million Jews arrived, bringing development and wealth. They were given the opportunity to have a state and be full citizens in the Jewish state. They chose war, not once, but many times, constantly, with nothing to gain. They are absolutely stupid, but not all of them. This woman in the video is intelligent.

The

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DN28jU5wr21/?igsh=MWQ4ZWJ2azJ6bGNjNQ==

 

Edited Friday at 02:06 PM by Breakingthewall

[Twentyfirst]

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@zazen come to the real world. Israel is the best thing that could have happened to the Palestinians and the Middle East in general. They can't continue living in the Middle Ages, stoning adulterers, hanging gays, and killing blasphemers in the 30th century.

When we open interdimensional portals and communicate with alien civilizations, what would happen if one of them drew a picture of Muhammad? Have you thought about that? An intergalactic war! That would be terrible!

Those alien civilizations were promised to the Jews by god 3,000 years ago...

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

The Palestinians weren't a state; they were tribal settlers of a territory. They shared that territory with Jews and Christians. Half a million Jews arrived, bringing development and wealth. They were given the opportunity to have a state and be full citizens in the Jewish state. They chose war, not once, but many times, constantly, with nothing to gain. They are absolutely stupid, but not all of them. This woman in the video is intelligent.

The Palestinians weren't a state; they were tribal settlers of a territory. They shared that territory with Jews and Christians. Half a million Jews arrived, bringing development and wealth. They were given the opportunity to have a state and be full citizens in the Jewish state. They chose war, not once, but many times, constantly, with nothing to gain. They are absolutely stupid, but not all of them. This woman in the video is intelligent.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DN28jU5wr21/?igsh=MWQ4ZWJ2azJ6bGNjNQ==

 

It's obvious you have a deep hatred for Palestinians and see them as animals. How are you on an enlightenment forum? Do you mind sharing how you found the actualized channel?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's obvious you have a deep hatred for Palestinians and see them as animals. How are you on an enlightenment forum? Do you mind sharing how you found the actualized channel?

I don't hate Palestinian at all, I posted many videos of Palestinian that are smart and brave, open minded, like this https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

But I see that it's impossible to coexist with the extremist, and a lot of them are absolutely extremist. What the Jews should do? Leave?

Edited Friday at 01:24 PM by Breakingthewall

[Twentyfirst]

44 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't hate Palestinian at all, I posted many videos of Palestinian that are smart and brave, open minded, like this https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

But I see that it's impossible to coexist with the extremist, and a lot of them are absolutely extremist. What the Jews should do? Leave?

Okay fine you are right, you European Jew

You totally belong in the Middle East where your skin gets sunburned for some odd reason

Edited Friday at 01:51 PM by Twentyfirst

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Okay fine you are right, you European Jew

You totally belong in the Middle East where your skin gets sunburned for some odd reason

Then they should leave. What are you going to get with that ideas? Millions of deaths?

[Breakingthewall]

The reality is simple: Israel has confronted radical Islam and destroyed Gaza. What have Muslim countries done? Nothing, and this in part because most agree with Israel.

Only the mentally ill Iranians and the profoundly retarded Erdogan, who finance terrorists, in addition to Qatar, have timidly barked.

Result: The odds are 10 to 1 that the Iranian regime will fall quickly and Erdogan will be crushed in the next elections. And let's see if they stop sending millions to the Muslim Brotherhood to annoy the Europeans. Most Muslim countries will applaud the fall of those clowns.

Edited Friday at 04:26 PM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall In the very words of a prominent Zionist, who understands something so basic that you don’t - which is that any native people resist colonisation instead of bending the knees, or in your case getting on your knees lool

I boldened the end bit: “Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today.'' Meaning - they are not neutral about the demographics of Arabs existing within their Jewish state but wish to re-balance and socially engineer the state to be majority Jewish and economically and strategically ruled in favour of them.

On 18/10/2024 at 2:57 PM, zazen said:

Quotes from Jabotinsky (ideological forefather of the Likud party):

https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf

''My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage''

''Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised'

''Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.''

''Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach. That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.''

 

Quote from the Oded Yinon plan which seem to be how history has unfolded till today

https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/A_strategy_for_Israel_in_the_Nineteen_Eighties.pdf

''Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.''

''Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The subsequent dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas, as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run. The dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short-term target''

''Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today.''

Great video:

 

And you say Zionism has been the best thing to happen to the Middle East. Wisen up your bigoted self for your own sake.

@Twentyfirst He seems to be advocating for colonialism with liberal-progressive characteristics. Quite profound and paradigm shifting. He’s a progressive colonialist.

Edited Friday at 02:50 PM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

And you say Zionism has been the best thing to happen to the Middle East. Wisen up your bigoted self for your own sake

Could be a false statement, or a true one, the game is not over.

The Middle East is a very complicated place. Israel has one goal, and that is to survive as a nation. Do you think it should disappear? It seems they've made a great effort; they're earning the respect of surrounding countries.

And in doing so, perhaps they'll generate stability. If Israel didn't exist, do you think there would be peace in the Middle East? There's always war there; it's easy to blame everyone but yourself. How important are the Palestinians? Much more so than the Kurds? Or the Syrians? Or all those who are in war zones now? Why? 

Palestinians have built their identity on hatred. It's their core. You see that as absolutely justified; I see it as absolute stupidity. Different opinions. And seems that west now support the hate of the Palestinian. 

 

Edited Friday at 04:20 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The subsequent dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas, as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run. The dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short-term target''

These countries didn't exist until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This doesn't mean they should be fragmented, but we should understand what the Middle East was like before the English and French drew artificial borders in XX century