This is an idiotic comment. As a point though, although there are religious aspects to to the conflict(Ownership of Jerusalem and temple mount, ect..), it really has very little to do with religion anymore as much as it's about control of land and not wanting to be attacked.

[deleted]

> Ok first of all, if Israel doesn’t want Islamic fundamentalists in power, it shouldn’t arm and fund them. That’s the only reason Hamas has any power in the first place.

Hamas was a gamble that Israel took decades ago. Israel screwed up. So what should the lesson be here? Should Israel never trust any Arabic groups again?

> In what sense did Israel not take the land by force?

Some history.

In 1947 the United Nations (the same organization that antisemetic groups rely on to support their anti-Israel position these days) passed a resolution calling for separate independent states for Jewish and Arab populations, with the city of Jerusalem held in an international trust since nobody could get along when it came to control of the city. Britain, anxious to maintain the status quo continued to arrest Jewish immigrants who were trying to enter the areas designated for them.

Arabic militants who were committed to hating the Jews until the end laid seige to the 100,000 Jewish people living in Jerusalem, killing anybody who attempted to bring them supplies (meanwhile, today, people who say that this kind of action is justified against Jewish people get irate when Jerusalem forces simple screen incoming shipments for bombs and rockets. One side definitely plays by different rules than the other.)

The British eventually left the area (keeping large numbers of Jewish immigrants in detention centers in Cyprus until the following year) and worked to set up an arms embargo against the fledgling Jewish state which was asking only for the right to live in a contiguous swath of territory and not be targeted for slaughter - again. Arab forces mustered 250,000 heavily armed fighters against a civilian population, relatively outgunned until Czechoslovakia broke the embargo and provided equipment to counter the British weaponry the Arab states had pointed at the new Israeli state.

After a month long truce brokered by the United Nations ran out, Arabic forces once again attempted to expel or kill all Jewish settlers in the area. Israel pushed back and started to capture territory that had been used to stage attacks against them. Later that year, Jordan annexed swaths of Palestine in an agreement that nobody except for the British accepted as valid.

In 1949 Israel signed ceasefire agreements with Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. Not formal peace treaties, they were maining "you stop trying to kill us and we'll stop shooting back" deals. There were no formally recognized international boundaries established, but rather what was essentially putting a line of tape on the floor saying "you stay on that side of the room, and we'll stay on this side".

Real history is a far cry different than your portrayal of "and they burst into the area with guns and just took everything they wanted".

> To say that Palestinians didn’t exist before the 1800s is an egregious lie.

Except they didn't". "Palestine". "Palestinian Arab". See how different terms are used? Why do you think that different terms are used? Perhaps could it be that they refer to different groups? People lived in the US Midwest 1,000 years ago. Did that make them American Midwesterners? No, no it did not.

"Palestine" as you are using it did not exist before the mid 1800s. It was not a unified people with their own identity. Want to talk about egregious lies? Let's start by your claim that Palestinians existed as a unique cultural agglomeration before that time.

> That region has historically been referred to as Palestine for millennia

You rather disingenuously leave out that the region had been home to Akkadians, Gutians, Elamites, and Amorites - none of which are Palestinans as used and understood today. Then the Semitic Hyksos people came (they weren't related to modern Palestinians either) and were driven out. Then Egypt took control of the territory. Then the Sea People (nobody know who they were) showed up and caused a bunch of problems - their victories might later have been claimed by Jewish groups, but there is nothing even close to a consensus on this.

At some point during the 10 year reign of Merenptah of Egypt (round 1210 BC) he wrote that "Israel had been devastated" in wars against Libya (who were allies of the Sea People), which is the first known external reference to Israel in the area, though it is unclear what "Israel" referred to - an ethnic group or tribe or minor independent or other state in the area.

By 1100BC and 1050BC Israel was firmly established in the region, with the splitting of the unified kingdom into the North and South (with the Southern kingdom centered in Jerusalem around 930BC).

The Assyrians (not modern Palestinians) took over the region around 720BC, but unable to defeat the Israeli capital of Jerusalem contented to making it a vassal state around 720BC.

They were then driven out by Babylonians around 600BC, who destroyed everything in the region including Solomon's Temple and took the remaining Jewish people into captivity, pulling them out of the region.

In the late 500s BC, Achaemenid king Cyrus the Great defeated the Babylonians and allowed the Jewish people to return to the region. (Still nobody from whom modern Palestinians can draw historical legitimacy, as if you cared.)

Then Persia fell to Alexander the Great, eventually the Maccabees revolved around 200 BC and formed what would be the last independent Jewish state in the region, until they were conquered by the Romans, with the Palestinina region being placed into Roman Judea by Agustus around 30 BC.

Romans destroyed Jerusalem around 70AD, a defeat of the Jewish people in the area by Lucius Quietus around 115 AD, the Bar-Kochba Revolt around 135AD during which Roman/Jewish fighting led to almost 600,000 Jewish deaths, after which Hadrian renamed the region Syria Palaestina specifically to insult the remnants of the Jewish people.

In the 300s Constantine the Great made the region a Christian land, and Muslim groups showed up in the mid 600s.

Flash to today, when you say "hey, the Arab Palestines were there first, no fair driving out people and capturing their lands, give them back! Oh, the Jews were there first and were driven out? Well, you can capture their lands and not give them back, the rules of fairness don't apply to them."

That’s a weird false premise and very distopian/Orwellian of you.

You sound like big brother himself.

Your assumption is that people in power are benevolent actors doing what’s in the best interest of the common person. You’re telling me the only options are sacrifice your rights/privacy for safety or die?

A far more plausible explanation for this rhetoric is fear mongering, which far right governments do all the time in order to consolidate their power and maintain it.

There is such a thing as deescalation