The hypocricy of the anti-Israel brigade

Yep, put up the fence. That's what the Native Americans should have done, I'm sure you would say, yes?

Well, my ancestors came here a little later than that. But I'm glad Ellis Island was around in the 19th century, because otherwise I'd ... well, technically, not exist, but let's indulge in a momentary flight of fancy and say I'd be living in cold-as-fuck Scandinavia.

If your ancestors came via Ellis Island, I'd say the odds are pretty good that they went through the process legally, what with the Atlantic being just a trifle harder to swim across than the Rio Grande.

A better analogy might be that a big kid stole your lunch money last year so, every time you see him, you say something nasty about his mother. Yes, you're understandably sore about the lunch money, but needling the kid won't get it back and, eventually, he kicks your ass just to shut you up for a while.

I have to give you some credit, though. Compared to the protesters, who are insisting that "the communities should have been consulted," you have managed to avoid the logical inconsistencies of their argument -- namely, that it requires them to state either that local governments should be able to bar organizations like Wolverine Social Services from deciding how to use their property, or that "the mob" should get to decide. Unfortunately, you had to descend into your usual frothing displays of shrieking extremism to do it.

Oh, did Israel end the settlements policy? About time!

No, but to use my analogy, needling the big kid isn't going to get your lunch money back. It's only going to get you beat up again when the big kid would otherwise have been content to leave you alone.

Or do you imagine that if Hamas just fires enough rockets, eventually the Israelis will say "Fuck it. The West Bank isn't worth all this. We're outta there" and leave?

But you love the frothing displays of shrieking extremism. It's why you still post here.

I do not, but clearly some Palestinians do. Or, they might simply want revenge.

Or maybe they're just bored and figure shooting bottle rockets at the Jews is the most interesting way available to pass the time.

Again, the Palestinians need to get on the same page.

Poor basis for statecraft. And, arithmetically, it's a loser: the Palestinians do X damage to the Israelis with their rockets, the Israelis do 1000X damage to the Palestinians with their retaliation. The Palestinians will always be seeking revenge, because every action they take produces a much larger reaction that they then need to avenge.

It seems that many Palestinians want to hold on to the dream of reclaiming their entire former homeland, even if that dream is unattainable and that their people will have to live in misery. If that's what they as a people choose, so be it. In another generation or two, every Palestinian who lived in the West Bank in 1967 will be gone, and perhaps a more reasoned approach can be pursued.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't agree with this. I suspect they see themselves in a no win situation, and just wish to make the Israeli's suffer on the way out.

Are you fucking kidding me? Israel continues to expand its illegal settlements, built on stolen Palestinian land continuously. This voids any claim to be the innocent victim, acting defensively.

It also makes the idea that if the Palestinians would just simmer down and stay quiet that they would be treated properly.

And that last map is from 2005.

"Clearly"? There's still controversy over who fired the first shot in 1948, but feel free to share your expertise.

Well, maybe, if by "simmer down" you mean stop lobbing missiles at Israelis, and if by "stay quiet" you mean stop deliberately locating their launchers next to large concentrations of civilians...

What were the borders of the Palestinian state before World War I?

Calculated ignorance, or is your Google broken?

Highlight the part of that map wherein the name Palestine appears within distinct borders designating it as a nation. That map only uses shading to indicate where "Palestine" later would be, not where it was in 1914.

Because it wasn't in 1914. It was carved out of territory seized from the Ottomans. It wasn't until the British Mandate of Palestine established it that it, or "Palestinians" as a nationality, would come to exist.

Palestinians have no more ancestral claim to that land than the Israelis do, and in fact considerably less.

Who cares? I thought you weren't a statist. This is personal property, to which they still hold the deeds.

And you make no secret that you are one, so don't think that jab has more power behind it than kitten breath, kitten breath.

Show me an image of one of these "deeds" you claim they hold.

You can't even figure out time stamps. You expect us to believe you can read Arabic?

You seem not to have heard of this before. Could it be that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about?

Source?

I invented Arabic.

The Ottoman Empire.

John Castle does not recognize the authority of property rights not established by force or fraud.

Problem with those deeds is, iirc, that they were owned under the auspices of the Ottomans.

New owners move in after a war - in this case the British - they're not necessarily beholden to the previous agreements. When we buy land, we buy it under the reality that it is ours right until the state decides otherwise. If that wasn't the case half of Europe would still be serfs.

They're an indication that Israel should do right and recompense the previous owners, but it's not an indicator of actual ownership.

I don't? According to where?

The Ottoman Empire doesn't exist anymore.