Israel has no borders. It just keeps expanding.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

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.

You are correct.

Israel, as a Jewish state, does have the right to exist. The current problem is just what Israel thinks "exist" means.

I believe Israel has the right to exist as a state in the portions of Palestine they were given in 1947 by the United Kingdom (which then “owned” the land) and the United Nations. I do not believe they have the right to exist as a state occupying all of Palestine, or any more territory than they were given in 1947.

Here is a map of how Israel has expanded its “right to exist" since then, and continues to do so today.

Source FourMaps.jpg (1800×1200)

Interestingly, Israel has never defined as of its borders so it has leeway to expand itself constantly.

A state has no natural right to exist. Its people do. The UK consists of three countries but no one mentions Scotland's "right to exist" . It has known borders and cannot grab more land by saying it has the right to exist. That should apply to Israel.

I think we’ve gone past that old question. A more relevant question is “will Israel exist?” The way they’re conducting themselves their future doesn’t look bright.

United Nations General Assembly, Resolution181, adopted on November 29, 1947, provided for the creation of Israel, and formally recognized Israel's legitimacy and independence.

16 hours 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.

Excellent summary.

Of course Israel has the right to exist, and to defend itself as it sees fit.

Israel as it is today poses an existential risk to the entire world. They should be forced to give up their nuclear weapons before they used them on Iran, and then on any other so-called enemy including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Turkey when they decide to expand the "Greater Israel Project" to the North. Israel states it it surrounded by enemies. However, what do you expect when you destroy entire apartment blocks and routinely kill press, aid workers, target hospital and schools, and engage in thesniping children. The genocidal state of Israel should not be allowed exist. And this has nothing to do with "jews." It has to do with genocidal monsters. The country needs to be cleansed for its psychopathic ethno-suprematist leadership and sanctioned until they vow to end their Apartheid state and join the civilized world as did South Africa.
The "state" of Israel is a British fabrication which committed genocides and ethnic cleansing to establish itself, and now continue that behavior to this day. They need "regime change" worse than any other nation on the planet.

2 hours ago, Bruce Aussie said:

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

We don't want the extremist orthodox in the US. No extremists from any faith. They are all liabilities.

16 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Thats a benefit because it keeps their IPs visible.

Since when can you see the IP addresses of other members?

You need to remember that Israel 'exists' on all of 1-2% of the land area of the Middle East. The other 98% are Muslim lands, many of which expelled their Jewish populations in the 1940s-60s. So to be fair, the Jews expelled should ALSO have the "right to return" to their former homes, reclaim the property and wealth that was stolen from them, etc.

It is a deliberately loaded question. And even worse are the tools who start their diatribes with, "of course Israel has a right to exist...." Well, how magnanimous of you! Now ask that of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Serbia, and any of the other myriad countries created in the aftermath of WW2.

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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

I think that point is largely past now. Too much time has passed, too much suppression, dispossession, and suffering have accumulated for “two states” to still sound like a serious answer without a complete change in the reality on the ground.

At the same time, this has to be approached honestly and with balance. Israel exists in a geographically toxic landscape, surrounded by enemies and shaped by repeated wars, attacks, and real security fears. Continuous attacks on Israeli civilians have not helped the Palestinian cause; if anything, they have hardened Israeli society, strengthened its most extreme politics, and made the Palestinian situation even worse.

Both sides have fed this catastrophe in different ways, even if the balance of power between them is not equal.

Part of the problem is also that some of Israel’s most extreme justifications are framed in religious terms, tied to the idea of reclaiming the promised land. 1 Samuel 15:3 is one example: it contains a command to kill men, women, children, and infants. There are other passages with similar annihilatory logic. That is a fact about the text. Ancient scriptural war commands are not a moral or legal basis for modern politics. Using them to justify present-day violence does not create security; it normalizes collective punishment and exterminationist thinking.

And if I had been born Israeli and Jewish, or Palestinian, I would most likely have been radicalized myself in one direction or the other. That is the honest truth.

The only reason I can see two evils instead of only one is because I have the luxury of distance: I have not been emotionally formed by this conflict, and I have not personally suffered loss because of it.

That distance makes it easier to see that endless historical grievance, religious entitlement, terror, occupation, and collective punishment are all pushing this in the wrong direction.

So repeating “if only both sides accepted a two-state solution” is not enough anymore.

The reality now is much darker and much more damaged than that slogan admits.

History matters, but if it is only used as a weapon, it will justify even greater horrors. The future is what matters, and that requires a political path based on equal dignity, equal rights, and ending the logic that one people’s safety must come through the permanent domination or destruction of the other.

Does Israel Have a ‘Right to Exist’?

NO.

Israel now has no rights, whatsoever.

Israel has intentionally given up its rights, after repeated military campaigns of GENOCIDE.

This should be clear as day.

And WHO should they blame?

Guys like This:

Guys like this make the Nazis look like Girl Scouts.

These guys have been brainwashed from a very early age.

They are no longer able to see reality, unfortunately.

Israel is here ,so any talk of "right to exist" is not wise .It is small but powerful state with wonderful people (except religion fanatics).They need to make buffer zones against enemies .Judea and Samaria is a part on ancient Jew state and should belong to Israel from my point of view.

Yes.

1 hour ago, connda said:

Since when can you see the IP addresses of other members?

IP addresses are visible to the Gods of TV.

It is up to them whether or not they wish to share the IP addresses alongside each member's profile.

For sure, though, THE MOSSAD knows.

So, watch what we say, is wise advice.

We would not want any members to suddenly get....DISAPPEARED....would we???

2 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

United Nations General Assembly, Resolution181, adopted on November 29, 1947, provided for the creation of Israel, and formally recognized Israel's legitimacy and independence.

Within borders defined on November 29 1947.

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

Of course Israel has the right to exist, and to defend itself as it sees fit.

Yes.

Israel has that right, since Might makes Right.

And, that would be OK....IF it did not have such a powerful lobby in Washington.

David Barnea, of Mossad, spent a great deal of time at the White House.

Israel has infiltrated Washington.

Allow Israel to fight it out, WITHOUT NUKES, and let the best men win, without ANY support from the USA.

Great idea, at this point.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Within borders defined on November 29 1947.

Are you referring to the plan for partition ? I'm not aware of any reference to borders.

23 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes.

Israel has that right, since Might makes Right.

And, that would be OK....IF it did not have such a powerful lobby in Washington.

David Barnea, of Mossad, spent a great deal of time at the White House.

Israel has infiltrated Washington.

Allow Israel to fight it out, WITHOUT NUKES, and let the best men win, without ANY support from the USA.

Great idea, at this point.

Fight it out with whom ?

The Quran states more than once that Allah gave Jews the Holy Land, larger than present day Israel. So according to Islam it does, and always has. Quran never mentions Palestine, but does the Children of Israel over 40 times.

12 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Fight it out with whom ?

Let the Israelis fight it out with WHOMEVER They See Fit.

The Israelis have become the Pitbull of the ME.

So, their blood-lust will never be satiated, as long as Israel is the boil on the backside of the ME.

Let them fight, because this is their right.

Just: NEVER SUPPORT Israel in any more fights.

They have now worn out their welcome, through their long-term behavior.

And now, they have worn out our patience, too.

Let them fight, if they must.

They will be gone, before you know it.

Israel, and its leadership, is destroying Israel, from the inside out, and from the ground up.

They are incapable of seeing reality, at this point.

The entire world CANNOT afford to have a state of Israel...unless....maybe a small one inside the US State of Michigan.

And, may they freeze their asses off, up there, all alone.

Or, sink like the Edmund Fitzgerald....like a stone, and never to rise again.

19 hours 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.

T

19 hours 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.

There happened already the two state partitionof Palestine.

East part Jordania,

West párt Israel.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Within borders defined on November 29 1947.

Israel's borders have not been fully and officially defined or internationally recognized in their entirety, representing a 75-year-old issue marked by "strategic ambiguity," wars, and temporary armistice lines. While Israel has formal, treaty-based borders with two neighboring countries (Egypt and Jordan), its borders with Syria and Lebanon, as well as the borders of the Palestinian territories, remain contested or unfinalized.

There's a whole Wikipedia page about this.

I would sooner be surrounded by Israelis' than Muslim's that's for sure and wish they could further exist on the beaches of Dover on piecework' for example.

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

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.

Sorry Dad.

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Let the Israelis fight it out with WHOMEVER They See Fit.

The Israelis have become the Pitbull of the ME.

So, their blood-lust will never be satiated, as long as Israel is the boil on the backside of the ME.

Let them fight, because this is their right.

Just: NEVER SUPPORT Israel in any more fights.

They have now worn out their welcome, through their long-term behavior.

And now, they have worn out our patience, too.

Let them fight, if they must.

They will be gone, before you know it.

Israel, and its leadership, is destroying Israel, from the inside out, and from the ground up.

They are incapable of seeing reality, at this point.

The entire world CANNOT afford to have a state of Israel...unless....maybe a small one inside the US State of Michigan.

And, may they freeze their asses off, up there, all alone.

Or, sink like the Edmund Fitzgerald....like a stone, and never to rise again.

We shall see. Israel has good working relationships with both the USA, and with it's Arab neighbours. It views the regime in Iran as it's main threat, with people such as yourself as a remote annoyances. I suspect Israel will survive long into the distant future.

7 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

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.

Saying a country has “lost its right to exist” isn’t a serious argument - it’s rhetoric. Countries don’t lose their existence because of war or accusations, otherwise half the world wouldn’t exist. You can criticise Israel’s actions - and many people do - but that’s very different from arguing the country itself shouldn’t exist - then you are Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO, Iran.... and agree with their methods to remove Israel from the map.

Also, context matters. Israel hasn’t been operating in a vacuum - groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, along with Iran, have launched thousands of rockets, missiles, and attacks against it. That’s not disputed. A more accurate way to describe the situation is that Israel’s military actions are largely responses to ongoing threats - sometimes controversial or disproportionate, but not happening “for no reason”...

If those attacks had never happened, the scale and frequency of Israel’s military response would look very different. That doesn’t make everything Israel does right - but it does mean this is a cycle of conflict with cause and effect, not a one-sided campaign that appeared out of nowhere.

In terms of scale, the imbalance is stark. Since October 2023:

Hamas and allied groups have fired ~10,000–20,000+ rockets fired into Israel. Mostly unguided, short-range projectiles - the vast majority intercepted by systems like Iron Dome, resulting in over a thousand Israeli deaths overall (including the October 7 attacks).

In contrast, Israel has carried out 50,000+ airstrikes / munitions drops (widely cited estimates) Including bombs, missiles, artillery, and drone strikes on targeted sites.

The human cost reflects that imbalance. Israeli casualties are in the hundreds to low thousands, while in Gaza, health authorities report tens of thousands of deaths, along with widespread destruction of infrastructure. Whatever position people take politically, the raw numbers show a conflict defined by massive disparity in firepower, impact, and loss of life on each side.

So yes - both sides have launched tens of thousands of attacks. But Israel has carried out more strikes, and each one tends to be far more destructive. The question is: does being more effective mean Israel should stop defending itself? Or does it mean the situation is more complex than simply counting numbers?

The conflict has become heavily politicised, especially in places like London, where we’ve seen large protests focused on Israel. But that raises a fair question about consistency - where were the same scale of protests against the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its own crackdowns, which have led to ~30,000 deaths just last year? allegedly there have been more domestic deaths in Iran at the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran (a student was hung yesterday), than there have been in Gaza - where is the outrage there ?

Why no protests against the Houthi movement, whose war in Yemen has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths (~400,000), many of them civilians?

None of that justifies or excuses civilian harm anywhere - but it does highlight that global outrage can be selective - and that selective outrage is clearly being carried over into threads like this due to poltiical bias by those lacking the capacity to stand back....

If the standard is about protecting civilians, then it should be applied consistently, not only when it fits a particular political narrative or because someone 'hates Trump'...

1 hour ago, bogozy said:

T

There happened already the two state partitionof Palestine.

East part Jordania,

West párt Israel.

That’s not quite historically accurate.

The original two-state partition plan for Palestine was proposed by the United Nations in 1947 (Resolution 181), which envisioned separate Jewish and Arab states within the territory of Palestine - not Jordan as the Arab state.

After the 1948 war, the land was divided differently: Jordan took control of the West Bank, and Egypt controlled Gaza. That situation wasn’t recognised as a final “two-state solution” for Palestinians - it was a temporary outcome of war, and Palestinians still did not have an independent state.

So no - Jordan is not the “Arab state” from the original partition plan. The unresolved issue has always been the creation of a distinct Palestinian state alongside Israel, not Jordan replacing it.