Written 6 months prior to 1948 Arab-Israeli war ""As the Arabs see the Jews"His Majesty King Abdullah,"

[Lemon law]

Perhaps the root of the problem, from either a Arab or Jewish standpoint, is the simple division of residents in a given area into groups of 'US' and 'THEM' With a somewhat implicit assumption that the two groups are like oil and water, simply incapable of mixing. And that sadly, can act as a self fulfilling prophesy.

Even as a kind of world armpit of the universe backwater, Palestine saw somewhat of an improvement and a Renaissance during the late 19'th and early 20'th centuries, thanks to an infusion of Russian Jews fleeing extreme anti-sematism. I am of course referring to the Saul Hertzog back to the land movement, as Jewish communities all over Russia pooled money to send in a few people to buy some land in Palestine.

And like most non-violent cultural mixing, the Russian Jews brought back the ancient practice of irrigation to the benefit of the whole region. And in many cities in the region, Arabs and Jews got along very well as a rising tide lifted all boats.

And with the possible exceptions of Afro American, the same has been by in large true. We soon assimilate our immigrants, and in two or three generations, the 'Thems' simply become part of 'US'. And part of the root of the Israeli problem is their unwillingness to assimilate or accept anything but their own religion, and to too great of an extent, Israel has built an Apartheid society, that can only be propped up by an inordinate and exhausting amount of military force.

Once again, IMHO, we can only have peace in Israel when various groups share it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
These current events could make good grounds for the germans to stop paying compensation to the jews....how long should the german people be held into account for their generations prior?
If Israel had to stand on it's own feet, it would be wiped out inside of five years time- and thats what I think will happen, the money will dry up and they will be washed up, lose their hold on America and live happily ever after as slum-lords in brooklyn.

...and you're just eagerly awaiting the time when the Arabs will finish the job the Germans failed to complete.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

Also, on a side note, I can't help but ask: Assuming everything said here is true, does it justify terrorism? Can arabs legitimately hold innocent jews to task for this?

It would be interesting to know what the population of that land was and how much of it was completely worthless swampland and desert and how much of it was purchased for settlement by the Jews. My understanding is that the land was mostly worthless and non-arable until it was redeemed through backbreaking labor. It seems like transforming worthless desert into fertile land while also purchasing much of it would give one a claim to the land.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

The difference between "2000 years ago" and "for the last 1300 years" is not 700 years.

Right. It's kind of a weak argument, but I ask why do we distinguish on basis of who's been there longer. Common sense would be to ask who was there first.

And that's just as ludicrous.

Who was there first is debatable but it's a silly road to go down anyway. Much of the problem began with the Zionist movement where Jews from all over the world moved to Israel and kicked Palestinians off their land. <<-----Links please!!!

Imagine some English guy buys land in Italy and his family lives there for many generations. Then I come over from the US and take their land from them because my ancestors where Italian.

That is not common sense at all.

You actually believe that somebody is going to let you make a statement without links to back it up???

It's a pure lie. Jewish zionists that moved to Israel purchased land.

That's like you buying a house from someone then him claiming that you moved their and kick you out of the house.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Perhaps the root of the problem, from either a Arab or Jewish standpoint, is the simple division of residents in a given area into groups of 'US' and 'THEM' With a somewhat implicit assumption that the two groups are like oil and water, simply incapable of mixing. And that sadly, can act as a self fulfilling prophesy.

Even as a kind of world armpit of the universe backwater, Palestine saw somewhat of an improvement and a Renaissance during the late 19'th and early 20'th centuries, thanks to an infusion of Russian Jews fleeing extreme anti-sematism. I am of course referring to the Saul Hertzog back to the land movement, as Jewish communities all over Russia pooled money to send in a few people to buy some land in Palestine.

And like most non-violent cultural mixing, the Russian Jews brought back the ancient practice of irrigation to the benefit of the whole region. And in many cities in the region, Arabs and Jews got along very well as a rising tide lifted all boats.

And with the possible exceptions of Afro American, the same has been by in large true. We soon assimilate our immigrants, and in two or three generations, the 'Thems' simply become part of 'US'. And part of the root of the Israeli problem is their unwillingness to assimilate or accept anything but their own religion, and to too great of an extent, Israel has built an Apartheid society, that can only be propped up by an inordinate and exhausting amount of military force.

Once again, IMHO, we can only have peace in Israel when various groups share it.

Dude you seriously need to look around the world. Everywhere Muslims reside from Southern Thailand to London England it's "oil and water" For every active conflict which involves secular forces e.g. Columbia/FARC I can name 10 which have Muslim participants. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with it it's the only faith I know in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war. Until we come to this salient fact we will be unable to defend ourselves.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: jonks
There's a dozen arab countries with plenty of empty space in them living under islamic law, plenty of places for them to go. The jews had just been massacred, yet again, and the world finally said, lets give these fucking people one small piece of land to call their own and some guns so they have a chance at surviving.

That is a ridiculous premise. We'll kick these people off their land to make room for Jewish people and expect other countries that had no part in anything to take in the displaced people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: flavio
Text

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

The difference between "2000 years ago" and "for the last 1300 years" is not 700 years.

Right. It's kind of a weak argument, but I ask why do we distinguish on basis of who's been there longer. Common sense would be to ask who was there first.

And that's just as ludicrous.

Who was there first is debatable but it's a silly road to go down anyway. Much of the problem began with the Zionist movement where Jews from all over the world moved to Israel and kicked Palestinians off their land. <<-----Links please!!!

Imagine some English guy buys land in Italy and his family lives there for many generations. Then I come over from the US and take their land from them because my ancestors where Italian.

That is not common sense at all.

You actually believe that somebody is going to let you make a statement without links to back it up???

He is actually right regarding the Jewish immigration, but "kicking off the lands" is a ignorant fools statement. If anything the Jewish settlers took desert and made it into farmland. The arabs than attacked them multiple times over fears of the Jewish settlers eventually outnumbering them.

The idea that Plaestinians were not removed from their land and Jews just came in a cultivated land nobody was using is an ingorant fools statement.

"For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished...I can't bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming it for their own...I can't do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell without me." Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Mitchell, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, "The Other Israel", August 1998.

"Nathan Chofshi - 'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations"'...

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."


Read more on the expulsion and ethnic cleansing here.

Oh 1940 after the riots and all the papers calling for a 2 land state..Yeah the two state idea was seen as a pretty good idea back than, it is too bad the Arabs didn't take it and instead wanted to wholesale slaughter the Jews. Too bad for you I guess the Jews won that fight and didn't roll over again like they did in Europe.

Both sides had people that wanted a totally solution for there side, the Zionists wanted there own nation, the Arabs wanted the complete extermination of the Jews. I find it funny you defend a people that wanted a genocide and only did not have it do too loosing a war.

That is a lie. The innocent Zions wanted their own nation and the evil Palestinains wanted to slaughter all the Jews? That's idiotic.

The Zions wanted their own nation free of Palestinians and kicked them off their land and slaughtered many of them. The Palestinians liked the land they had and weren't so interested in being refugees.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

Also, on a side note, I can't help but ask: Assuming everything said here is true, does it justify terrorism? Can arabs legitimately hold innocent jews to task for this?

It would be interesting to know what the population of that land was and how much of it was completely worthless swampland and desert and how much of it was purchased for settlement by the Jews. My understanding is that the land was mostly worthless and non-arable until it was redeemed through backbreaking labor. It seems like transforming worthless desert into fertile land while also purchasing much of it would give one a claim to the land.

Of course you are completely ignoring the fact that Jews removed people from their land and stole it, often violently. Your understanding is wrong.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Haven't finished the article yet, but I thought I'd point out this contradiction:

"Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab."

"I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!"

Not sure. But a 2000 year old claim is still a claim, no more than a 1300 year old claim is. Although that's a weak argument. I'm going to continue reading.

The difference between "2000 years ago" and "for the last 1300 years" is not 700 years.

Right. It's kind of a weak argument, but I ask why do we distinguish on basis of who's been there longer. Common sense would be to ask who was there first.

And that's just as ludicrous.

Who was there first is debatable but it's a silly road to go down anyway. Much of the problem began with the Zionist movement where Jews from all over the world moved to Israel and kicked Palestinians off their land. <<-----Links please!!!

Imagine some English guy buys land in Italy and his family lives there for many generations. Then I come over from the US and take their land from them because my ancestors where Italian.

That is not common sense at all.

You actually believe that somebody is going to let you make a statement without links to back it up???

It's a pure lie. Jewish zionists that moved to Israel purchased land.

That's like you buying a house from someone then him claiming that you moved their and kick you out of the house.

That is a pure lie. Thats' like forcibly taking land from someone and then claiming that you purchased it legally.

"For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished...I can't bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming it for their own...I can't do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell without me." Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Mitchell, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, "The Other Israel", August 1998.

"That Ben-Gurion's ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve his purpose...most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants...even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Perhaps the root of the problem, from either a Arab or Jewish standpoint, is the simple division of residents in a given area into groups of 'US' and 'THEM' With a somewhat implicit assumption that the two groups are like oil and water, simply incapable of mixing. And that sadly, can act as a self fulfilling prophesy.

Even as a kind of world armpit of the universe backwater, Palestine saw somewhat of an improvement and a Renaissance during the late 19'th and early 20'th centuries, thanks to an infusion of Russian Jews fleeing extreme anti-sematism. I am of course referring to the Saul Hertzog back to the land movement, as Jewish communities all over Russia pooled money to send in a few people to buy some land in Palestine.

And like most non-violent cultural mixing, the Russian Jews brought back the ancient practice of irrigation to the benefit of the whole region. And in many cities in the region, Arabs and Jews got along very well as a rising tide lifted all boats.

And with the possible exceptions of Afro American, the same has been by in large true. We soon assimilate our immigrants, and in two or three generations, the 'Thems' simply become part of 'US'. And part of the root of the Israeli problem is their unwillingness to assimilate or accept anything but their own religion, and to too great of an extent, Israel has built an Apartheid society, that can only be propped up by an inordinate and exhausting amount of military force.

Once again, IMHO, we can only have peace in Israel when various groups share it.

Dude you seriously need to look around the world. Everywhere Muslims reside from Southern Thailand to London England it's "oil and water" For every active conflict which involves secular forces e.g. Columbia/FARC I can name 10 which have Muslim participants. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with it it's the only faith I know in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war. Until we come to this salient fact we will be unable to defend ourselves.

Many Wars have Christian and Jewish participants. It's like you're trying to make it out like it's the Muslims against non-religious people all the time. Really all religions are kind of screwed up. Until you come to this salient fact you are going to continue to completely misunderstand the world around you.

Ultimately you are trying to justify the actions of Israelis with bigotry. "I don't like Muslims so do whatever you want to them."

 

[piasabird]

You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

 

[Farang]

I find it amusing that King Abdullah, him and his country being direct products of British meddling, would complain about foreign intervention. I guess he likes it when it suits him and doesn't when it doesn't.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a "national home" for an entirely foreign people.

So Abdullah, do you also deny their right to create Transjordan and install you as King simply because you threatened to attack the French in Syria? You're not even from the area jackass.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Dari
Might = Right.

Sorry, but Jews can claim whatever they want. However, so long as they have the force to backup their claims, no one is going to stop them. It is the victor who gets to write history.

And when this gets turned on the jewish peoples (again) ?

Nice to see somebody bring a different perspective. But let's not lose the correct perspective. To those who think both sides are full of shyt and need to be collectively bitch slapped despite having a proper foundation of knowledge for such sentiments you are surprisingly CORRECT. Both sides have been acting like absolute idiots since the zionist movement began.

As for the palestinians: Why don't they just fukk off with the violence and make love, not war? Why do you ask? Let Israel assimilate the occupied territories. Let them require true democracy in voting rights. And then when the palestinians outnumber the jews in terms of citizenship? LEt's see israel keep its "jewish" character.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

Has your city lost a war to a foreign power and is now considered that foreign power's terrirtory? Are you a leader of that foreign power? If so then you can expel those other cultures as you see fit.

Since I doubt that you meet those qualifications your analogy sucks.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

Has your city lost a war to a foreign power and is now considered that foreign power's terrirtory? Are you a leader of that foreign power? If so then you can expel those other cultures as you see fit.

Since I doubt that you meet those qualifications your analogy sucks.

When hitler did this a few years prior, everybody threw a fit

Funny how 20th century conventions (enshrined after wwi) just dont' apply to the Israeli/Arab conflict.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

Has your city lost a war to a foreign power and is now considered that foreign power's terrirtory? Are you a leader of that foreign power? If so then you can expel those other cultures as you see fit.

Since I doubt that you meet those qualifications your analogy sucks.

When hitler did this a few years prior, everybody threw a fit

Funny how 20th century conventions (enshrined after wwi) just dont' apply to the Israeli/Arab conflict.

Without Hitler there likely never would have been an Israel in the first place.

 

[2Xtreme21]

For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

Too late. A good portion of the population of Mexico is already here.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

Um isnt that already happening?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

Um isnt that already happening?

Yeah buddy.. and do you like it?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

Has your city lost a war to a foreign power and is now considered that foreign power's terrirtory? Are you a leader of that foreign power? If so then you can expel those other cultures as you see fit.

Since I doubt that you meet those qualifications your analogy sucks.

When hitler did this a few years prior, everybody threw a fit

Funny how 20th century conventions (enshrined after wwi) just dont' apply to the Israeli/Arab conflict.

Without Hitler there likely never would have been an Israel in the first place.

I wouldnt' say never. Zionism was already in place since 1880 something or whatever and they decided on the palestinian lands as the place for their Israel sometime afterwards.

The point is simple: YOu cannot justify Israel's current existence based on rights of conqueest when such rights were universally condemned and eliminated post wwi. Can you name another nation that has successfully conquered and retained land in such a manner since wwi?

No you can't.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
For anyone who doesn't get it, let's pretend the entire world sent the entire population of Mexico (~106,000,000 people) to disperse themselves around the United States. I'm sure all you defiantly pro-Israel people would be happy to greet them all with open arms, right?

Um isnt that already happening?

:laugh:



It doesnt matter if you "dont like" something. If you resort to violence, you will get violence back.

If Native Americans started suicide bombings here in the US, we wouldnt say "Oh, its ok, we stole their land." We would arrest/kill the offenders. That is how it works.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I wouldnt' say never. Zionism was already in place since 1880 something or whatever and they decided on the palestinian lands as the place for their Israel sometime afterwards.

There still wouldn't have been an Israel formed and legally recognized by most of the countries in the world without Hitler's persecution of the Jews and the international sympathy that arose because of that persecution.

The point is simple: YOu cannot justify Israel's current existence based on rights of conqueest when such rights were universally condemned and eliminated post wwi. Can you name another nation that has successfully conquered and retained land in such a manner since wwi?

No you can't.

Britian didn't retain Palestine. The USSR didn't retain the eastern bloc countries either, at least eventually. But both still had control for a time, and we have rearranged borders and christened new countries since WW1 and WW2.

Besides, once Israel formed it was theirs to retain and they have done so very successfully.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: piasabird
You are assuming no actual Jews lived in the land prior to 1948. This is a bit of a miscalculation. I will call it ignorance.

That would be beside the point and an ignorant argument. Jews and Arabs both lived on the land before 1948 in relative peace.

How would that possibly justify the forceful expulsion of arabs from the land during the zionist movement?

I live in an area with many cultures right now. Does that mean I can expel the other cultures from my city?

I will call your argument idiotic.

Has your city lost a war to a foreign power and is now considered that foreign power's terrirtory? Are you a leader of that foreign power? If so then you can expel those other cultures as you see fit.

Since I doubt that you meet those qualifications your analogy sucks.

When hitler did this a few years prior, everybody threw a fit

Funny how 20th century conventions (enshrined after wwi) just dont' apply to the Israeli/Arab conflict.

Without Hitler there likely never would have been an Israel in the first place.

I wouldnt' say never. Zionism was already in place since 1880 something or whatever and they decided on the palestinian lands as the place for their Israel sometime afterwards.

The point is simple: YOu cannot justify Israel's current existence based on rights of conqueest when such rights were universally condemned and eliminated post wwi. Can you name another nation that has successfully conquered and retained land in such a manner since wwi?

No you can't.

The problem is that the issue isn't that simple. It's not as if all the Jewish people in the world climbed in their tanks, rode into town, and took it over. Jews have been living on that land for more than 2,000 years. Arabs, as a religious body, have been there for 1,400 years. By the late 1940s, there were essentially an equal number of Jews and Arabs living in the disputed territory. They didn't really get along too well, but neither group wanted to leave. There is a long history of nations and territory being split up over religious, nationalistic, and cultural differences. I don't see why this split was really any different.