Are there any arguments regarding Israel's right to exist aside from

Are there any arguments regarding Israel's right to exist aside from

"Muh holocaust"
"It was Jew land a two thousand years ago"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JP4oEc0GeLo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19
youtu.be/FKplabTRuak
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Should all anti-semites be killed?

No there's not
/thread

>right to exist
this doesn't even mean shit. during history the strongest took the land. an incredibly young isreal managed to steamroll half a dozen powerful mudslime countries. they gained their "right to exist" (whatever the fuck that means)

It makes Muslims super butthurt.

Nope

Yes. If we didnt have israel there we would have another shitty arab country. Also, target for terrorists, it protects western nations that way.

Is there any argument against Israel's right to exist beyond "Waaaah, but it's da joos!"

Fuck off to Sup Forums lad

They conquered it because the Brits allowed them to.

>Are there any arguments regarding Israel's right to exist
The jews control american government
/thread

They've hated whites ever since the romans took their precious Jerusalem away from them.

Why does Israel even exist?

The weak should fear the strong

They cause terrorism in the west.

the shit thing is that the country was given to them that's why people are pissed at israel

Everybody needs their containment zone. I'm a pan-nationalist.

Nope

>an incredibly young isreal managed to steamroll half a dozen powerful mudslime countries
So this is the power of Italian education... whoah

>powerful mudslime countries

>romans
>white
No, it's like serbia with kosovo except a thousand times more autistic. Should have just gotten some territory in europe.

So the choice is between
>having a developed, efficient jeqish State
And
>kicking out all the jews and have another arab shithole

I wonder which one is the better alternative.

WE WUZ ROMANS

Might is right.

(remember this)

You mean a jewish allied trained and supplied army managed to defeat the power vacuum as the british retreated and took all their guns with them after having destroyed most of the middle eastern armies that fought against them in WWII?

>during history the strongest took the land

>jews
>strong

They have always been weaklings troughout history. Israel exists because they are very smart and jew'd the way for it to become a military might.

>if I just write off the arguments for having a Jewish state exist, what arguments are left?

Sick phrasing, OP. Is this how debates look like in monkey shit Brazil?


By the way, would lose to hear whatever arguments you have for your 200 million people glorified favela existing. Particularly when you consider the sad fact that it offers a way worse quality of life than us, and has provided less to modern science/technology than us, despite having x25 our population.

kek monkeys BTFO

>if I just write off the arguments for having a Jewish state exist

desu the WE WUZ HOLOCAUST'D is a shit argument, by that token must india be annexed by gypsies?

and the WE WUZ LIVING HERE A LONG TIME AGO AND GOD PROMISED IT TO US, is also a shit argument, I probably belong to a haplogroup that originated somewhere in Ukraine or something, I could make up a religion saying god promised me that land. Is that a valid argument for me to mvoe to ukraine and tell them to fuck off because its mine now?

the only argument is might is right, which is why i refuse to take a stance in the arab-israeli conflict, because both sides are just tryign to out-might one another. may the best man win!

I'd rather Jews control Israel to be honest I doubt christians could visit the holy sites if muslims controlled the country.

I was just wondering man, I'm not actually pro Palestine but if that's all you got those are actually very weak arguments on why to support Israel.

the arab league had way more man than the jews, they were trained by brits, they were better equipped. they still lost.

it wasn't a full scale, all-out invasions by the desert niggers but they didn't went to isreal to hand out candies either.

jews are just superior. today they would glass all these failed nigger countries they are surrounded by in a month. that's why the arapes don't go there to pull a paris or a nice, they know kikes don't fuck around unlike the pussified westerners. they deserve to be there, deal the fuck with it.

What's your point of existence, like at all though? Not saying the brazilians are any better but isn't your whole meaning of life based around jahve who none of you people believe exist? What's the point?

Germanics have (had) aryanism and the whole existence chooses its own meaning stuff, Asiatics have a similar thing but more statism, but you? What do you even do? If your reason to exist is "because muh ivy league U.S. cronyism", then shouldn't you at least specify what that cronyist 'science' will lead to that you desire so much?

Eh. It was established and defended long enough ago that in my eyes no longer requires any "right" to exist. It just does.

Because Israel exists in conformity with international law.

>who none of you people believe exist

Be ready for a little surprise when you'll visit Israel m8

Are you Jewish?

Not really.
Wekk it's still there and has mighty allies that will hold it there.

>desu the WE WUZ HOLOCAUST'D is a shit argument, by that token must india be annexed by gypsies?

The argument that Jewish people need a state of their own, where they are governed by themselves, is not "shit". It's a racial/religious group that's been persecuted for thousand of years, and kicked out from half the countries in the world. It's a laughable notion to think that this is a sustainable position for them. You either let them live in peace in their own country or you slaughter them all, because they clearly don't belong with you. Hitler chose the latter, the Allies chose the former.
The other problem with your false equivalence is when you consider that you're giving them land that belonged to nobody else before it. Yes, I said nobody else. There was no established Palestinian state, or even a Palestinian identity for that matter [this would not come to exist until after 67], and this land was under British control (and Ottomans and Romans and everyone else before that) before we received/took it. The supposedly driven out local population was a) not even united under a flag/country and b) not even a million people strong. Though for that matter, they were offered to have their own state established here alongside ours, which they refused. Rest's history.

> I could make up a religion saying god promised me that land. Is that a valid argument for me to mvoe to ukraine and tell them to fuck off because its mine now?

It's not religious as much as it is historical. It's historical fact that the Jewish people lived in this land, and for that matter BEFORE the establishment of Israel a significant Jewish population [30% of the population of mandatory Palestine] existed here.

Does that mean we have a historical "right" to it? Well, no more and no less than anyone else who claims one.

>the arab league had way more man than the jew
Source? They barely had any soldiers at all.

>they were trained by brits
Source? The brits fought AGAINST the arabs in WWII and trained JEWISH troops.

>it wasn't a full scale, all-out invasions
Exactly. The Palestinians didn't have anything. They had to rely on a half assed Jordanian "look we care a little ok" non-deployment. We're talking untrained troops with no supplies outnumbered at best 2:1 and at worst 10:1.

>they know kikes don't fuck around unlike the pussified westerners
The kikes have had the westerners fight their wars from the 1960's. Remember the gulf war? Look at the death tolls for that. I'd say the yanks didn't fuck around.

I'm honestly mind boggled by the idiotic logic here. Unless you have some sort of "code" you have "no point to exist"? That's desperate. Maybe that's why you're clinging to idiotic Sup Forums teachings.

I mean, you're trying to put out some weird, unrelated Jewish conspiracy on the side here, so maybe I shouldn't give your posts much thought.

>the only argument is might is right, which is why i refuse to take a stance in the arab-israeli conflict, because both sides are just tryign to out-might one another. may the best man win!


Really isn't. The "argument" is quite simple, really. Israel is established, Israel is strong, and Israel has existed for 70 years now. Whether you like it or not it exists, and now the discussion is simply about how to "compensate" the misfit Arabs [Palestinians] with their own state, since they refuse co-existence under our flag.

>It's a racial/religious group that's been persecuted for thousand of years, and kicked out from half the countries in the world
Gee, I wonder why.

What's the stats? Like 60% are secularized. Half don't even believe in god.

>The kikes have had the westerners fight their wars from the 1960's. Remember the gulf war? Look at the death tolls for that. I'd say the yanks didn't fuck around.


To think that the Gulf War was fought for/about Israel shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge about Middle Eastern history... it's quite sad to see an uneducated person such as you pretend to be an authority here.

>First response
2 things Gypsies have also been persecuted for 1000 years, they left india due to persecution and were persecuted all the way from afghanistan to spain, does that mean they deserve a state? no not really.

I'd say there is one country where the jew has never been significantly persecuted, The US, instead in the US the jew reigns supreme and the US is so fond of jews they actively support israel. I think the jewish state should be carved out of the territory of the US.

Why? Because if we want to provide jews with sanctuary, why do so where the inhabitants and neighbours are hostile (arabs)? why not do it where they are actually liked (americans)?

>Israel is established, Israel is strong, and Israel has existed for 70 years no
and should it become unestablished and weak and cease to exist, i will shrug it off and say well easy come easy go, might is right.

Oh, I can discuss why for hours on end. From the fact that Judaism was always socially progressive, or the success of Jews, or just being minorities in more archaic societies, there are many many reasons.

But no matter how you view it, you can agree they were/are misfits in other societies, and deserve to have their own state [or be contained in one] or be removed from the world. Anyone who suggests Jews can simply live around the world, stateless, is a clown or a liar.

>Unless you have some sort of "code" you have "no point to exist"?
That would be entirely correct Schlomo. Unless you can motivate why you exist, and what your goal with existence is, then believe it or not you have no reason. You're just a meat clock. As such, you can not possibly answer the question why you should exist more so than anyone else. Is there any unified opinion that in any way states according to semitic philosophy and thought that 'science and technology' are the reasons to live, and that these things would somehow make you more righteous in existence than, say, a Brazilian (who, according to you, has 'less science and technology')? The only argument for Israel existing today that isn't born out of circle jerking about the alleged shoah is that the state already exists, and is populated by people that did not get to choose whether or not the state exists. That is the only reason you have (and have to have) other than "oy vey jahve gave this place to us two thousand years ago therefore we should cleanse the arab schmutz and no this isn't like the Germanics inhabiting poland 1.5k years ago and cleansing the jewish schmutz trust me this is totally different".

>mean, you're trying to put out some weird, unrelated Jewish conspiracy on the side here
Every fucking time you paranoid tinfoil hat wearing circle jerking fucks go on about the 'conspiracy conspiracy', that everyone that uses their brain is in a conspiracy to portray a jewish conspiracy. Can't you see the fucking irony?

Honestly, if the "Gypsies" united under one flag/ideal [akin to Zionism] and pleaded for a state, I wouldn't oppose it. I'm not as informed about their beliefs and history as I would like to be qualified to discuss this, but I don't see a reason to oppose it?

Same reason I support Kurdistan, really.

>
I'd say there is one country where the jew has never been significantly persecuted, The US, instead in the US the jew reigns supreme and the US is so fond of jews they actively support israel. I think the jewish state should be carved out of the territory of the US.

>Why? Because if we want to provide jews with sanctuary, why do so where the inhabitants and neighbours are hostile (arabs)? why not do it where they are actually liked (americans)?

This discussion is moot and frankly idiotic today. You're not going to uproot 8 million people, the vast majority of which were born here, and you're not going to remove a 1st world, developed society/army of 70 years from there and relocate them to the other side of the world. And certainly not just to allow room for another chaotic Muslim society to rise up.

If we had this discussion in the forties, I'd be inclined to agree or at least pursue this discussion further, but it's completely irrelevant today.

By the way, I'll add that your reasoning about the U.S.A is very weak. It's nice to the Jews today? Well, people were saying that about a certain tolerant and civilized society in the 19th-20th century, too - Germany.

The point is that the Jews should not be a wandering child at the mercy of their foster family. They [we] want to be an independent group that can take charge of our own future. So yes, most of us would much rather exist in a distant land surrounded by violent savages as an independent group than as some minority under big papa USA's care.


Kinda like Brexit.

An idiotic mix of faux philosophy and more conspiratorial bullshit. Don't expect me to humor you.

What do you think about the Jews that led the Bolsheviks or Karl Marx are you taught about him in school what do Jews think of them?

Yes, totally had nothing to do with toppling ba'athists. And the U.S. had no idea about fracking at the time and really knew that twenty years from now we will need that oil although preliminary research suggests we really won't need that oil but we will need that oil it's all about oil and tugging the saudi peni.

Don't get me wrong, all three recent ba'ath vs. U.S. & co. wars, the first and second gulf and the iran-saudi proxy wars in Syria, have had some serious U.S. interest backing as well, but to deny that the U.S. does what it does to please best ally Israel at least as part of its motivation for interventionism is... Well it's something you'd expect to hear only from an Israeli.

Questioning a "right" for a state to exist is silly, since it presumes states derive legitimacy by legal fiat or metaphysical "good".
States simply exist as normative realities.

Generally, the Montevideo Convention can be used as a rough approximation of what a state looks like.
>The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The Israelis have all of the above. Hence, statehood.
It could be a more slightly different question (ie, ">Should< Israel exist") were the state in danger of being destroyed, but it's not, so the question is moot.

Same thing I think about any non-Jews that were part of that movement. I identify them as Bolsheviks, not necessarily separately as "Bolshevik-Jews". Unless you're trying to go deeper and talk about the Jews being supposed leaders of these groups, which I find laughable.

But if you're trying to ask why Jews may have been disproportionately part of such cultural revolutions, I've always liked this explanation best:

youtube.com/watch?v=JP4oEc0GeLo

(first minute or so)

20 years from now islamists will unite the arab world and genocide the jews in Israel what will cause the 3rd world war.
Well most jews will be still genocided but it's sure the west wins.

Is this real?
Are you completely ignoring the fact that Kuwait was invaded? That the U.S.A intervened on the Kuwaiti behalf? That the U.S.A has a very personal beef (doubly so the Bush family) with Iraq and its threats of expanding?

No, must be about Israel.

The underlying argument behind historical zionism has always been that given the historical pattern of persecution of jews (the Spanish inquisition, the Russian progroms, etc.) it made sense for them to have land where they coulf live free and a nation state to protect them, the holocaust was just making the point abundantly clear in terms of justifying the existence of the state of Israel. It didn't necessarily follow that it should be on the levant and there were atempts to create a Jewish state in places like Africa and South America, the Soviets even specifically created a Jewish oblast for such a purpose. Ultimately however the ethnic/religious argument prevailed amongst most Jews that the holy land was the only acceptable place on which to build their state. Today the real argument would be that Israel id fait accompli, it undeniably exists and it counts with the full support of every major Western power to continue doing so, regardless of the Palestine question. There's no plausible/conceivable scenario in which this will change, Israel is a sovereign state in terms of both organic and declarative theory, its existences being acknowledged by all but Arab holdouts who even so have acknowledged both its de facto existence and the posibilty of recogition (pending the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict) for all practical purposes Israel does have as much a right to exist today as every other nation on earth, arguably more so than many since it could conceivably independently mantain its own existence.

Then correctly recognize the ones who did holocaust as "nazi holocausters" the German people didn't do anything.

This is at least honest. The justification is that 'it exists now'. Which is a valid justification. And I agree, it was a shit place to put it because it completely destabilized the mid-east but now it's there. Too bad. We can't just redraw all the borders to how they looked in 1942 for no reason.

Always with the conspiracy conspiracy. Every single time. Every single one of you is utterly convinced that anyone that dares think critically about your state is in a conspiracy to fabricate a jewish conspiracy.

Just remove the tinfoil hat for a second and admit I'm right.

>capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
Worst definition. Imagine a small state creates a system of power that is far more efficient and just than the corrupt banker states surrounding it. They create sanctions. Suddenly the state has no right to exist?

>Same thing I think about any non-Jews that were part of that movement.
Look at the weimar republic. Look at how many marxist/globalist militant leaders were Jews (the overwhelming majority). Now look at how many nationalist Weimar loyal or freicorps leaders were jews (nearly none). Unopposed, the jews would have created a marxist German state, that might have been swallowed by the soviet international.

>go deeper and talk about the Jews being supposed leaders of these groups, which I find laughable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19
"commanders and leaders">>click their articles>>ctrl+f>>"jew"
"Oy vey goyim we just tried to enslave the european peoples because they didn't like how we kept claiming we were chosen to rule them! It was just our burning hatred for the western nations that had taken us in and our refusal to assimilate because of our perceived superiority that made us promote an ideology that would have enslaved the world!"
Fine. I buy that. But don't blame people for fighting back.

Jews always acted according to their own interests.
They are basically smart gypsies and like them they despise everything that isn't their tribe

>Are there any arguments regarding Israel's right to exist aside from
The main argument for Israel's right to exist, and its continued right to do so, is that it does. It does and it has for almost 70 years now. All nation derive their main raison d'etre from the same fact - they exist and they have (often) existed for decades or centuries, and they have been recognised to exist by other nations.

Stop being a Sup Forums faggot.

>By the way, would lose to hear whatever arguments you have for your 200 million people glorified favela existing. Particularly when you consider the sad fact that it offers a way worse quality of life than us, and has provided less to modern science/technology than us, despite having x25 our population.

Hue hues annihilated, kek. Well done, Greatest Ally

>Suddenly the state has no right to exist?
You're misunderstanding what it means to "enter relations with other states".
That means being able to initiate dialogue, have those other states maintain that dialogue with the entity in question, etc.
The Principality of Sealand doesn't have a US embassy. It doesn't have (and likely never will) have relations with the US, or any other state.

>Sven defends Isaac

Typical

No one is pretending Iraq didn't invade Kuwait. Many countries take hostile actions against each other without U.S. involvement, and Kuwait was not a key U.S. partner. The saudis were, yes, and the U.S. allegedly forged evidence the Iraqis were going to launch into Saudi Arabia before U.S. hostilities commenced (which the Iraqis did do afterwards). Nice attempt to slide the issue into me claiming Kuwait never happened. What I claimed was that the U.S. intervention had more than oil-centred incentives for joining the conflict.

I don't know if you know Swedish-Israeli relations, but they're pretty bad, and they almost always been bad in the last 50 years, except for some intermissions in the last two governments before this one.

All the same, those arguments still apply. It's ridiculous to hold Israel's raison d'etre at a much higher level than anyone else's. Why justifies Portugal's existence except for >muh Reconquista? Why does this question even matter? Portugal exists, just like Israel exists, because its people and rulers have somehow managed to carve out a piece of sovereign territory and have somehow managed to defend this piece of sovereign territory against those that would quench that sovereignty.

>have those other states maintain that dialogue with the entity in question, etc.
And if neighbouring and/or powerful states reject the establishment of diplomatic relations and otherwise block or censor any attempts to establish adequate diplomatic missions, the state loses its right to exist.

If the U.S. would have managed to fully isolate Cuba, Cuba would lose its right to exist. If South Africa establishes a no-fly-zone over Lesotho and only lets SA-friendly people and trade over the land borders, Lesotho is no longer a state.

>The point is that the Jews should not be a wandering child at the mercy of their foster family. They [we] want to be an independent group that can take charge of our own future. So yes, most of us would much rather exist in a distant land surrounded by violent savages as an independent group than as some minority under big papa USA's care.

To be honest I can agree with this. If the Jews are content with a tiny, tiny little (it's 2/3rds the size of fucking Belgium) sovereign state on the Levant, half of which is desert, and which is bordered by massive Muslim nations which loathe it - then let them have it.

>If the U.S. would have managed to fully isolate Cuba, Cuba would lose its right to exist. If South Africa establishes a no-fly-zone over Lesotho and only lets SA-friendly people and trade over the land borders, Lesotho is no longer a state.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

I really like that picture

Consider the following:
A person that chose to settle an area is justified simply for reaching and holding that area? If I steal your house and manage to kill your family and bribe the cops, I am justified as owning that house? Or am I not justified until my wife gives birth to my son in your house, because he didn't choose where he was born and will act as an anchor baby?

And what if your family had loads of money stored in your house, from three generations of hard labour. You flee. Your children grow up to be poor glue sniffers, and my children grow up to be filthy rich thanks to you.

In my opinion, the anchor baby thing is justified. FOR THE BABY. Not the parents. The first generation could choose. If we could kill all communist settlers in Viborg, we should have done so. But the people who were born there since? Can't blame them for that shit. The same way the crime that was the establishment of Israel in already populated lands can't be punished because the people that committed it are dead. Unless we consider the impact of genes, which most Jews seem to consider when it comes to Germans, but get very butthurt if a German ever tries to accuse a Jew of guilt by genetics.

sod off, kike

>And if neighbouring and/or powerful states reject the establishment of diplomatic relations and otherwise block or censor any attempts to establish adequate diplomatic missions, the state loses its right to exist.
Again, states don't exist by "right". They either do or they don't. We can have a conversation if a state should or shouldn't be created, but that's separate from discussing whether or not there's an underlying moral or legal imperative. Sweden doesn't exist by "right". The United States has no "right" to exist. It simply does because everyone acknowledges it. Even the criteria in Montevideo are merely guidelines.

>If the U.S. would have managed to fully isolate Cuba, Cuba would lose its right to exist.
The US doesn't need to create a blockade. It simply needs to remove from that state the capacity for it to enter relations with other states.
See: China vs. Taiwan.
And that >may< be enough to end its statehood. Taiwan isn't a state, since many countries don't recognize it. But some do. Is it a state? Isn't it? These discussions are endless and there's no clear answer.

But one thing is clear: states don't exist by fiat. They exist as fait accompli. Nobody asked the US if we wanted independence, and nobody asked the Israelis. We took it, we meet the not-really-established criteria for statehood (if that even matters), we act, look, and speak like states, and nobody knows the difference. "Rights" don't enter into it.

How do you explain Neturai Karta that base their Anti-Zionist stance on the still debated Three Oaths? youtu.be/FKplabTRuak

Honestly interested.

If five people murder a guy in the forest for knowing something he shouldn't, was he a person? Apparently not. Because if he can't call for help, he's not a person. Logic.

Welcome to international relations. This is how nations are formed. What matters more if that given a long enough passage of time, the question becomes academic. Whoever owned and controlled a piece of land at a particular point in time (Phoenecians, Philistines, Israelites, Babylonians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Israelites again, Romans, Byzantines, various Arabs, Crusaders, Egyptians, Turks (with Arab residents), Brits (with Arabs and Jewish residents), and then Israelis again) is pushed away by whoever subsequently conquered and settled the land. Right and wrong, especially over time as many generations pass, is academic. Should we hand back the north of Scandinavia to the Sami? The Americas to the various native American tribes? Australia to the Aborigine tribes? Their fates were often just as bad, or worse, and the thefts and populations involved much, much greater.

>These discussions are endless and there's no clear answer.
Unless we remove the criteria that the state has to be able to establish political missions with other states. Then the discussion becomes really simple. Taiwan is a state.

>"Rights" don't enter into it.
Not by default but most states recognize laws regarding other states. Adding the last criteria to the Montevideo treaty was just a practical way to write nice sounding laws about the responsibility towards other states that you can avoid if you don't like said states.

Are there any arguments regarding any country's right to exist?

>being persecuted means you have the right to a state of your own
'no'

>country's right to exist
What a stupid notion to begin with.
That's the same as wondering about a person's right to exist.
The thing that gives a country the right to exist is merely its existence

If you hold the land, you hold the land.
Israels problem is that they could be waging permanent war against their neighbors, instead of doing apartheid on Palestinians just to have an enemy.

>Should we hand back the north of Scandinavia to the Sami?
If the Sami manages to through force or manipulation take our Germanic lands (which were not originally sami, that's a myth but I digress), then according to you they have the "right" to do so. And that is where I believe you are wrong, as you believe there is a definitive justification for existence without having even defined any requirements for meeting any a such other than an "es muss sein". That something is not defined as an absolution does not make it another absolution. Should the Americans give back America to the natives? It is up to them. Can the natives force them? No. Could they force themselves? Probably not. Could a small parasitic institution not identifying with the nation-state corrupt their society from within and indoctrinate white guilt into the settlers to the point where they will try to compensate for being better at conquest by giving up their life savings to repay some alleged crime by some distant forefather? Possibly. And there exists the eternal struggle, and he who does not wish to fight in this world of eternal struggle can not expect to survive at all. - A. Hitler

honestly at this point if your anti israel your anti semitic.

Why are people angry about based Jews making a place with barely anything of worth apart from holy cities into a good country? Give them more land if you ask me.

Why based Jews just don't destroy all arabs with their kabbalistic magic.

I'm surprised that french kike who posts charts and lists about israel being awesome whenever someone says anything about israel isn't here yet

well they are a people and we needed someone to hold down the middle east as it was big commitment

Well, if they managed to make with quite a small territory and hostility from all their neigbouring states such a great country (in much beter conditions than others in the region), they certainly deserve it.

"If u dont give us a cunt we will destroy ur cunt with the help of iluminati/freemasons"
They still do it anyway

>Well, if they managed to make with quite a small territory and hostility from all their neigbouring states such a great country (in much beter conditions than others in the region), they certainly deserve it.
Just like Chile in south america?

When are you going back to europe

No, there is not too much. But like Muslims in Western countries, they are here and we have to make with. There are not responsible for being born here, after all.

He's pondering weather or not to pull out his tripcodes

When you're subsided by all the Western world it's easy

honest it's just
>arabs sided with the USSR
>Israel sided with the USA
USSR sucked USA didn't
we lose

Is this whole passage a Hitler quote? It doesn't really answer anything in my post.

Good thread.

Maybe that they bought all the land legally ?