If you've ever been caught in that debate, you're not alone — it’s a common talking point used to shut down critical discussions about Israel.

In his latest monologue, Mehdi dismantles the "argument" used as Israeli propaganda and gives everyone three powerful counter-arguments to use when faced with the demand to recognize Israel's right to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoIUoH6kZY

I think Israel has a right to exist but it MUST share the land with Palestinians as per the original Balfour Declaration.

11 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think Israel has a right to exist but it MUST share the land with Palestinians as per the original Balfour Declaration.

Agree, but it was one of the last colonial moves - an American one at that. Also, it wasn't the Brits that created Israel, that was just their last gasp on the way out. It was Harry Truman who was behind the partition, and stealing land from the Palestinians (to gain favor with rich Jews in America), although the official line is that the partition was a UN thing. Truman's move to create a Jewish 'homeland' led to an historic political victory for him, and a catastrophe for the Palestinians that continues to this day - a drip drip of annexation.

28 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Agree, but it was one of the last colonial moves - an American one at that. Also, it wasn't the Brits that created Israel, that was just their last gasp on the way out. It was Harry Truman who was behind the partition, and stealing land from the Palestinians (to gain favor with rich Jews in America), although the official line is that the partition was a UN thing. Truman's move to create a Jewish 'homeland' led to an historic political victory for him, and a catastrophe for the Palestinians that continues to this day - a drip drip of annexation.

President Harry S. Truman’s decision to recognize the State of Israel on May 14, 1948—just 11 minutes after its declaration of independence—is widely considered a significant and "historic" action that, while politically risky at the time, contributed to his stunning 1948 re-election victory.

The U.S. delegates to the UN and top-ranking State Department officials were angered that Truman released his recognition statement to the press without notifying them first.

Draft White House Press Release with Handwritten Note by President Harry S. Truman: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/200612

1 hour ago, Jeff the Chef said:

If you've ever been caught in that debate, you're not alone — it’s a common talking point used to shut down critical discussions about Israel.

In his latest monologue, Mehdi dismantles the "argument" used as Israeli propaganda and gives everyone three powerful counter-arguments to use when faced with the demand to recognize Israel's right to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoIUoH6kZY

If someone argues that Ukraine lacks a legitimate right to exist, they should apply the same reasoning consistently to Israel, whose statehood is also historically shaped and contested. Both states have depended heavily on external support for their survival.

Whatever one thinks about Israel, Ukraine is not comparable in that sense: it has not expelled a people or seized their land in order to sustain its state. Ukraine is defending itself from aggression rather than using aggression to secure its existence.

46 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Whatever one thinks about Israel, Ukraine is not comparable in that sense: it has not expelled a people or seized their land in order to sustain its state. Ukraine is defending itself from aggression rather than using aggression to secure its existence.

The Ukraine comparison sounds neat, but it collapses under even basic history.

Israel did not just “expel a people to exist”... Its origins are tied to overlapping national claims, international decisions, and a war that followed rejection of compromise. Under the League of Nations Mandate, Britain was tasked with establishing a Jewish national home while protecting the rights of existing communities. That was always going to be messy - two peoples claiming the same land.

Then came the Holocaust. Six million Jews murdered. That’s not a footnote - it’s central. Israel wasn’t just ideology, it was also survival. Jews had been persecuted, expelled, and massacred across Europe and the Middle East for centuries.

In 1947, the United Nations proposed partition - two states, one Jewish, one Arab. Jews accepted it. Arab leadership rejected it outright. That’s the turning point people conveniently ignore.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, five Arab armies invaded. That war created the Palestinian refugee crisis - yes, a real tragedy. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum or in peacetime. It followed a rejected partition and a war aimed at preventing any Jewish state at all.

So, I want to be clear on this very point: there was an opportunity for a Palestinian state in 1947. It was refused for Several reasons:

- The land split felt unfair to Arabs given demographics

- Rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in the region

- Expectation that war could reverse the outcome

... and those decision have echoed ever since.

This wasn’t a one-off - The pattern continued...

- 1967: “Three No’s” - no peace, no recognition, no negotiations

- 2000 and 2008: serious negotiations rejected or collapsed

- Gaza 2005: Israel fully withdraws - result is Hamas rule and rockets, not peace

Meanwhile, Israel has repeatedly shown willingness to trade land:

- Gave back the entire Sinai to Egypt

- Left Gaza completely

- Engaged in multiple statehood negotiations

We can criticise Israel all day long - and plenty of criticism is justified. But the claim that Israel must not exist at all is something else entirely. No other country is held to that standard.

Now add Iran to the picture..... Since 1979, Iran has actively fuelled this conflict. It helped create Hezbollah, arms Hamas, and backs Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Not to build a Palestinian state - but to keep Israel locked in perpetual conflict and expand its own regional influence.

That matters because it rewards rejectionism. Violence gets funded. Compromise gets undermined.

So, this isn’t Ukraine. Ukraine is a straightforward invasion case.

Israel is a century-long conflict where:

- Two peoples claim the same land

- One side accepted partition

- The other rejected it and chose war

- External actors like Iran have kept the conflict burning

And... as final point: We can support Palestinian rights and recognise Israel’s right to exist. In fact, the entire idea of a two-state solution depends on both.

Denying Israel’s existence doesn’t solve the conflict - it guarantees it never ends - Israel has a right to use agressiion to defend itself, not doing so guarantees its annihilation.

No. Im over them. Just move them to Mamdanis NYC or Streisands Malibu estate they will be happy as larry. Just nonstop drama and this perpetual me me me attitude. Seeing the loons supporting democrats who chant for their genocide was the final straw.

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The Ukraine comparison sounds neat, but it collapses under even basic history.

Israel did not just “expel a people to exist”... Its origins are tied to overlapping national claims, international decisions, and a war that followed rejection of compromise. Under the League of Nations Mandate, Britain was tasked with establishing a Jewish national home while protecting the rights of existing communities. That was always going to be messy - two peoples claiming the same land.

Then came the Holocaust. Six million Jews murdered. That’s not a footnote - it’s central. Israel wasn’t just ideology, it was also survival. Jews had been persecuted, expelled, and massacred across Europe and the Middle East for centuries.

In 1947, the United Nations proposed partition - two states, one Jewish, one Arab. Jews accepted it. Arab leadership rejected it outright. That’s the turning point people conveniently ignore.

When Israel declared independence in 1948, five Arab armies invaded. That war created the Palestinian refugee crisis - yes, a real tragedy. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum or in peacetime. It followed a rejected partition and a war aimed at preventing any Jewish state at all.

So, I want to be clear on this very point: there was an opportunity for a Palestinian state in 1947. It was refused for Several reasons:

- The land split felt unfair to Arabs given demographics

- Rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in the region

- Expectation that war could reverse the outcome

... and those decision have echoed ever since.

This wasn’t a one-off - The pattern continued...

- 1967: “Three No’s” - no peace, no recognition, no negotiations

- 2000 and 2008: serious negotiations rejected or collapsed

- Gaza 2005: Israel fully withdraws - result is Hamas rule and rockets, not peace

Meanwhile, Israel has repeatedly shown willingness to trade land:

- Gave back the entire Sinai to Egypt

- Left Gaza completely

- Engaged in multiple statehood negotiations

We can criticise Israel all day long - and plenty of criticism is justified. But the claim that Israel must not exist at all is something else entirely. No other country is held to that standard.

Now add Iran to the picture..... Since 1979, Iran has actively fuelled this conflict. It helped create Hezbollah, arms Hamas, and backs Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Not to build a Palestinian state - but to keep Israel locked in perpetual conflict and expand its own regional influence.

That matters because it rewards rejectionism. Violence gets funded. Compromise gets undermined.

So, this isn’t Ukraine. Ukraine is a straightforward invasion case.

Israel is a century-long conflict where:

- Two peoples claim the same land

- One side accepted partition

- The other rejected it and chose war

- External actors like Iran have kept the conflict burning

And... as final point: We can support Palestinian rights and recognise Israel’s right to exist. In fact, the entire idea of a two-state solution depends on both.

Denying Israel’s existence doesn’t solve the conflict - it guarantees it never ends - Israel has a right to use agressiion to defend itself, not doing so guarantees its annihilation.

Your version starts the story too late and turns Palestinian rejection into the cause of everything. The problem begins earlier, with British imperial betrayal. Britain encouraged Arab hopes of independence in return for helping crush the Ottoman Empire, then backed a Jewish national home in Palestine anyway, even though the Arab population was still the overwhelming majority. So this was never just a dispute between two equal sides over the same land. It was a colonial project advanced under imperial protection.

By 1947, partition was not experienced by Palestinians as some fair and generous compromise, but as the partition of their own country without their consent. Saying “the Arabs rejected partition” explains nothing unless you also admit why: they were being asked to accept the loss of land and sovereignty in a country where they were the majority.

And the refugee crisis was not simply an unfortunate byproduct of war. It was also shaped by expulsions, fear, massacres, and organized militia violence.

So no, this is not just a story of one side accepting peace and the other choosing war. It is also a story of colonial sponsorship, demographic transformation, dispossession, and state-building at another people’s expense.

Jewish suffering in Europe, including the Holocaust, was real and immense, but that does not erase the fact that Palestinians were the ones made to pay the price for Europe’s crimes.

Jewish history under Muslim and Ottoman rule was often very different from the European history of exterminatory antisemitism, even if it was not free of persecution. That matters, because it undermines the idea that Palestine simply had to be turned into the answer to Europe’s crimes. Ukraine is defending itself within its own borders. Palestinians were asked to accept the loss of their homeland under a colonial framework they never agreed to. That is why the comparison does not rescue Israel’s history — it exposes the difference.

22 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Your version starts the story too late and turns Palestinian rejection into the cause of everything. The problem begins earlier, with British imperial betrayal. Britain encouraged Arab hopes of independence in return for helping crush the Ottoman Empire, then backed a Jewish national home in Palestine anyway, even though the Arab population was still the overwhelming majority. So this was never just a dispute between two equal sides over the same land. It was a colonial project advanced under imperial protection.

By 1947, partition was not experienced by Palestinians as some fair and generous compromise, but as the partition of their own country without their consent. Saying “the Arabs rejected partition” explains nothing unless you also admit why: they were being asked to accept the loss of land and sovereignty in a country where they were the majority.

And the refugee crisis was not simply an unfortunate byproduct of war. It was also shaped by expulsions, fear, massacres, and organized militia violence.

So no, this is not just a story of one side accepting peace and the other choosing war. It is also a story of colonial sponsorship, demographic transformation, dispossession, and state-building at another people’s expense.

Jewish suffering in Europe, including the Holocaust, was real and immense, but that does not erase the fact that Palestinians were the ones made to pay the price for Europe’s crimes.

Jewish history under Muslim and Ottoman rule was often very different from the European history of exterminatory antisemitism, even if it was not free of persecution. That matters, because it undermines the idea that Palestine simply had to be turned into the answer to Europe’s crimes. Ukraine is defending itself within its own borders. Palestinians were asked to accept the loss of their homeland under a colonial framework they never agreed to. That is why the comparison does not rescue Israel’s history — it exposes the difference.

Good points... If you want to go earlier, then let’s actually go earlier - not just to British imperial policy, but to the full historical context.

This wasn’t a sovereign Palestinian nation that was later carved up. The land was part of empires for centuries - most recently the Ottoman Empire - with no independent Palestinian state. The population was mixed, and Jewish communities had existed there continuously long before modern Zionism.

By the late 1800s, two national movements emerged:

- Jewish nationalism (Zionism), driven by persecution and exclusion

- Arab nationalism, developing across former Ottoman lands

Both laid claim to the same territory. That’s the root of the conflict.

Yes, Britain made contradictory promises - through the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration. But Palestine was not clearly guaranteed to Arab independence in those exchanges, and the post-war settlement was formalised internationally under the League of Nations Mandate. This wasn’t just a rogue imperial whim - it became part of the international legal framework at the time.

Calling Zionism simply a “colonial project” also oversimplifies things. There was no mother country exploiting Palestine. Jewish migrants were not agents of an empire extracting resources - they were a dispersed people, many fleeing persecution, buying land, building institutions, and seeking self-determination. You can oppose that politically, but it’s not classic colonialism in the way, say, Algeria or India were.

On 1947 - you’re right that Palestinians didn’t experience partition as fair. But the key issue isn’t whether it felt fair, it’s what the alternatives were.

The United Nations proposed two states. One Jewish, one Arab.

- The Jewish side accepted a divided outcome

- Arab leadership rejected any Jewish state at all

That matters. Because once partition was rejected, the conflict moved from negotiation to war - the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

On refugees - yes, expulsions, fear, and atrocities occurred. That’s historically documented. But it happened in the context of a war launched after partition was rejected. It wasn’t a peaceful society suddenly uprooted without conflict.

And there’s another part usually left out: around the same time, roughly 800,000 Jews were forced out of Arab countries. One refugee population was absorbed into a state. The other was kept stateless. That difference shaped everything that followed.

On the “Palestinians paid for Europe’s crimes” argument - it’s powerful, but incomplete.

Jewish persecution wasn’t just European. There were violent outbreaks in the Middle East too, including the Farhud. And more importantly, Zionism began before the Holocaust, not because of it. The Holocaust didn’t create the idea of a Jewish state - it made the consequences of not having one undeniable.

As for life under Muslim and Ottoman rule - yes, Jews were often treated better than in Europe. But they were still second-class subjects, not equal citizens, and certainly not a people with national self-determination. That distinction matters.

So the issue isn’t whether Palestinians had reasons to reject partition - they did.

The issue is what followed from that rejection.

If the position in 1947 had been “two states, even if imperfect,” the region would likely look very different today.

Instead, the dominant position was “no Jewish state at all,” followed by war.

That doesn’t erase Palestinian suffering. But it does mean the outcome wasn’t simply imposed on them by empire - it was also shaped by decisions made at the time.

And that’s why the comparison to Ukraine still doesn’t hold. Ukraine is defending an existing state from invasion. This conflict began as two competing national movements, one of which accepted division and the other rejected it.

I find that video obnoxiously one sided Israel demonizing propaganda.

He's skilled at debating -- in other words clever trickery as opposed to the truth.

However, there are some points that can referenced from it.

The question should exist with which borders is a very fair and very important one for BOTH Israel AND Palestinians.

The majority of Palestinians desire Israel to have no borders, to not exist at all in any borders -- talk about actual genocide!

I think the majority of Israelis have at least in the past been very open to a two state solution. It may be too late for that but what other than that is a reasonably fair goal?

A one state solution is exactly the same thing as the end of Israel.

Also the question -- does Palestine have a right to exist is a good one.

Yes. Just as Israel does.

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

No. Im over them. Just move them to Mamdanis NYC or Streisands Malibu estate they will be happy as larry. Just nonstop drama and this perpetual me me me attitude. Seeing the loons supporting democrats who chant for their genocide was the final straw.

Bizarre hateful post.

The topic is about the state of Israel.

Sounds as if you're talking about American Jews who it sounds like you hate just because most of them are democrats who see Trump as a fascist.

Jew hating comes from ALL sides.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Bizarre hateful post.

The topic is about the state of Israel.

Sounds as if you're talking about American Jews who it sounds like you hate just because most of them are democrats who see Trump as a fascist.

Jew hating comes from ALL sides.

I'm glad you posted that as I had no idea what the hell he was on about, thanks.

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Good points... If you want to go earlier, then let’s actually go earlier - not just to British imperial policy, but to the full historical context.

This wasn’t a sovereign Palestinian nation that was later carved up. The land was part of empires for centuries - most recently the Ottoman Empire - with no independent Palestinian state. The population was mixed, and Jewish communities had existed there continuously long before modern Zionism.

By the late 1800s, two national movements emerged:

- Jewish nationalism (Zionism), driven by persecution and exclusion

- Arab nationalism, developing across former Ottoman lands

Both laid claim to the same territory. That’s the root of the conflict.

Yes, Britain made contradictory promises - through the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration. But Palestine was not clearly guaranteed to Arab independence in those exchanges, and the post-war settlement was formalised internationally under the League of Nations Mandate. This wasn’t just a rogue imperial whim - it became part of the international legal framework at the time.

Calling Zionism simply a “colonial project” also oversimplifies things. There was no mother country exploiting Palestine. Jewish migrants were not agents of an empire extracting resources - they were a dispersed people, many fleeing persecution, buying land, building institutions, and seeking self-determination. You can oppose that politically, but it’s not classic colonialism in the way, say, Algeria or India were.

On 1947 - you’re right that Palestinians didn’t experience partition as fair. But the key issue isn’t whether it felt fair, it’s what the alternatives were.

The United Nations proposed two states. One Jewish, one Arab.

- The Jewish side accepted a divided outcome

- Arab leadership rejected any Jewish state at all

That matters. Because once partition was rejected, the conflict moved from negotiation to war - the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

On refugees - yes, expulsions, fear, and atrocities occurred. That’s historically documented. But it happened in the context of a war launched after partition was rejected. It wasn’t a peaceful society suddenly uprooted without conflict.

And there’s another part usually left out: around the same time, roughly 800,000 Jews were forced out of Arab countries. One refugee population was absorbed into a state. The other was kept stateless. That difference shaped everything that followed.

On the “Palestinians paid for Europe’s crimes” argument - it’s powerful, but incomplete.

Jewish persecution wasn’t just European. There were violent outbreaks in the Middle East too, including the Farhud. And more importantly, Zionism began before the Holocaust, not because of it. The Holocaust didn’t create the idea of a Jewish state - it made the consequences of not having one undeniable.

As for life under Muslim and Ottoman rule - yes, Jews were often treated better than in Europe. But they were still second-class subjects, not equal citizens, and certainly not a people with national self-determination. That distinction matters.

So the issue isn’t whether Palestinians had reasons to reject partition - they did.

The issue is what followed from that rejection.

If the position in 1947 had been “two states, even if imperfect,” the region would likely look very different today.

Instead, the dominant position was “no Jewish state at all,” followed by war.

That doesn’t erase Palestinian suffering. But it does mean the outcome wasn’t simply imposed on them by empire - it was also shaped by decisions made at the time.

And that’s why the comparison to Ukraine still doesn’t hold. Ukraine is defending an existing state from invasion. This conflict began as two competing national movements, one of which accepted division and the other rejected it.

You make some fair points. It is true that there was no sovereign Palestinian state in the modern sense before 1948, that Jewish communities had existed there continuously long before political Zionism, and that both Jewish and Arab national movements emerged in the late Ottoman period. It is also true that Jewish persecution was not limited to Europe, and that Jewish refugees from Arab countries are part of this history too.

But you are still replacing colonial dispossession with the softer phrase “two competing national movements.” The absence of a prior Palestinian state does not erase Palestinian self-determination, and a continuous Jewish presence does not justify transforming sovereignty against the will of the majority living there. Partition was not just “imperfect,” it was imposed as the division of another people’s country under an imperial framework they never accepted.

And the refugee crisis was not just a byproduct of war, but part of how the new state was consolidated. So this was never simply one side accepting peace and the other choosing war. It was also a history of imperial sponsorship, unequal power, displacement, and forced political loss.

That is why the Ukraine comparison still fails: Ukraine did not require the partition and dispossession of another people in order to exist. At the same time, it does not help either side if the past is only used as a weapon.

History matters because it explains the wound, but the future matters more because both peoples are there and neither is disappearing. It can still go either way from here, and that is exactly why the past is so dangerous: if this conflict reaches another breaking point, all these unresolved histories will be used to justify even greater harm. So the only serious way forward is one based on equal rights, equal dignity, and a political future where neither people lives under the domination of the other

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

This is just a vehicle for the jew haters to spew. Thats a benefit because it keeps their IPs visible.

Israel has as much right to exist as any other country.

Plus, it makes no difference if Israel exists or not, since in the eyes of the posters drooling with anticipation over this topic, the Jews already control the world via their Great Satan, the USA.

Bye. Enjoy. Im not helping you lot keep your little Der Sturmers circulation numbers up. Dont forget sex crime and baby killing.

Thank you for contributing to the debate in your usual style of saying nothing and spouting rubbish. Bye.

3 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think Israel has a right to exist but it MUST share the land with Palestinians as per the original Balfour Declaration.

No. Might is right. As evidenced throughout human history.

Don't like the outcome- then fight for it, it's the human condition.

24 minutes ago, Hummin said:

History matters because it explains the wound, but the future matters more because both peoples are there and neither is disappearing. It can still go either way from here, and that is exactly why the past is so dangerous: if this conflict reaches another breaking point, all these unresolved histories will be used to justify even greater harm. So the only serious way forward is one based on equal rights, equal dignity, and a political future where neither people lives under the domination of the other

If only someone suggested someting such as a 'two state solution' that both sides would accept.

Imagine a Middle East where the state of Israel had never come into existence......?????

31 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

No. Might is right. As evidenced throughout human history.

Don't like the outcome- then fight for it, it's the human condition.

If only this subject was that simple, how did we ever as a species manage to climb out the trees and get to where we are today?

The human race for all its achievements up to press, has learned nothing with attitudes like this.

Our future looks bleak.

SMH

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Bizarre hateful post.

The topic is about the state of Israel.

Sounds as if you're talking about American Jews who it sounds like you hate just because most of them are democrats who see Trump as a fascist.

Jew hating comes from ALL sides.

Especially other Jews. Or Kapos as they are known as, their home is the Democratic Party

2 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Imagine a Middle East where the state of Israel had never come into existence......?????

The whole “imagine a Middle East without Israel” argument sounds convincing if someone is an uneducated fool and ignore most of the region’s actual history.

It assumes Israel is the root cause of instability, when in reality the Middle East has been shaped by power struggles, sectarian divides, and territorial conflicts for centuries. Long before Israel existed, empires fought endlessly over the same land, and when modern borders were drawn, those tensions only intensified.

The Iran–Iraq War alone destroys the argument - eight years of brutal war between two Muslim-majority states over dominance and ideology, completely unrelated to Israel.

Then you have the Gulf War, where Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil and power, and the Iraq War, which unleashed years of insurgency and sectarian violence. Some of the bloodiest and most defining conflicts in the region had nothing to do with Israel at all.

Take Israel out of the equation and you don’t get peace - you get the same Middle East driven by the same forces. You still have the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, still have Sunni–Shia tensions going back over a thousand years, still have fragile states prone to collapse, and still have global powers interfering for strategic and economic reasons.

Syria does not suddenly stabilise, Yemen does not stop burning, and Iraq does not magically become unified.

The idea that removing Israel would calm the region is not serious analysis - it is a convenient oversimplification that ignores the real causes of conflict. Remove Israel, and all that disappears is a convenient scapegoat for people like you [Mike B Bad] to use - not the instability itself.

10 hours ago, Yagoda said:

This is just a vehicle for the jew haters to spew. Thats a benefit because it keeps their IPs visible.

Israel has as much right to exist as any other country.

Plus, it makes no difference if Israel exists or not, since in the eyes of the posters drooling with anticipation over this topic, the Jews already control the world via their Great Satan, the USA.

Bye. Enjoy. Im not helping you lot keep your little Der Sturmers circulation numbers up. Dont forget sex crime and baby killing.

This isn’t a thread about the Epstein files.

“Does Israel Have a ‘Right to Exist’?”

Not on my taxes, no.

Pull the plug already.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Does Israel Have a ‘Right to Exist’?”

Not on my taxes, no.

Pull the plug already.

Europeans still haven't forgiven Jews for the Holocaust.

It used to, but I think it has self revoked its right to exist with its genocidal behavior, and by becoming the policeman of the Middle East. The recent demolition of the Gaza Strip, their attempt to exterminate the Palestinian people, and now their attempt to take over South Lebanon and the Iran invasion proves that they are the new domestic terrorism government in the Middle East.

Any sympathy that they may have had around the world has dissipated, and the only support left that remains is with the US. If the US would withdraw it support the nation would likely collapse, and many of us are hoping that discontinuation of support happens.

13 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

In 1947, the United Nations proposed partition - two states, one Jewish, one Arab. Jews accepted it. Arab leadership rejected it outright.

That's a small point that's been swept under the carpet

I thought it already existed ?

Some, if not all, the definitions of antisemitism say that denying the right of Israel to exist is antisemitic.

I don’t agree with that.

I do agree that Israel has a right to exist, but it HAS to change and share its land with Palestinians, EQUALLY!

2 hours ago, TedG said:

Europeans still haven't forgiven Jews for the Holocaust.

I’m not sure what that’s about, nor I expect are you.

Israel is a small country. Maybe problem could be solved easy America is huge. Make a state for the Inside the USA. The 51st state. Ben could be the VP and America will be able to leave the middle east 100% saving billions dollars every minute. Ask the muslins to go back to the middle east. Maybe give them the current Israel land as a carrot on a string. With this arrangement maybe Iran will give up nuclear weapon desires if Israel nuclear weapons moved to USA.

MAGA

I think before asking does any country have right to exist people must ask themselves if they have right for existing.