Romania? strongest army in the region is ... half of goddam NATO.
Sorry but i had to laugh. Sorry but your pathetic armies are so laughable

I meant strongest in the region to oppose israel’s.
Got your point.

"Their land" wasn't "stolen" by the UN. A couple decades before WWI, Zionists started immigrating en masse to the historically sparsely populated area. It was only due to their influx, and the jobs they brought with them that Muslims also started immigrating to the area in even greater numbers. Everybody was buying land from the people who lived there. Buying, not stealing. Then comes WWI, and the British defeated the Ottoman Empire. They took governing control of the region. When they devolved their governing power to the locals 29 years later, that wasn't "stealing land" either. That was telling the locals, who the British knew weren't getting along, to start managing themselves. The Israelis obliged, the Palestinians did not.

40,000++ in the violent riots
62 killed 53 were hamas members
The IDF did a great job defending the border while minimizing civilian casualties

hmm like this canadian doctor or the children... No way, all your posts here are poison.

The jews need to go back to where they came from

Hell

When the British OETA took over governance the land was about 80% Islamic and about 10% Jewish. They then pushed a Jewish agenda (not some conspiracy or w/e, an actual agenda of promoting Zionism and establishing a Jewish nation, which was one of the agreements when the British OETA was given the task of governance) to increase the Jewish population and economic hold, giving Jews disproportionate representation in the local puppet government, and promoting Jewish dominance in an area that had been dominated by Islam (and was still, population-wise, dominated by Islam) for several centuries.

The Jews, obviously, were quite happy with what shook out in terms of the official creation of a Jewish state. The Arabs, who had lived in that land for centuries, were obviously not. The British, being the conquerors, imposed their will.

To me it's very strange that you support these actions, which all seem to involve big-government intervention and an imposition of what feels like a "Social Contract" of sorts on the members of Palestine, where the persons living in the area had no say over what happened to their area. The Palestinians are naturally defending the land that they view as theirs, which had been theirs for centuries, against what they view as unlawful seizure. I know you tend to support autonomy of individuals (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy), so I'm wondering what makes this situation distinct from those moments.

You're arbitrarily choosing to start at a point in history that supports your perspective. The Jews have history going back multiple millennia tied to that land. Just because the Arabs invaded, occupied and eventually displaced most of the Jewish population does not make that land Muslim. If you want to use the historical argument to argue who holds the rights to that land it's definitely the Jews.

jesus christ. he's not arbitrarily picking a point, he's correctly pointing out that when people inhabit a land for centuries (read: many generations) they feel they have a right to the land. he's correct to point that out, because the Zionist perspective is commonly that these centuries that the Muslims controlled the land don't matter, because of the longer Jewish connection to the land. This lack of concession and might is right treatment has led to a group of people who are upset, rightfully in some cases.

watching you claim perspective is being supported in a biased way while doing the same but worse is cute tho.