Israel should never have been founded.

Counter Argument "Israel literally won it's own War of Independence (1948 Arab"Israeli War) and earned its place in that land. The Israeli's had took a lot of land in their victory, but gave most back in the 1949 Armistice Agreements." So might is right is it? Israel had proven that it could win a war, therefore it could exist as a nation? I thought the enlightenment moved us past this stone age thinking that whomever has the largest club is in the right. Just because a country has started a war with another country and then lost, it does not mean that the casus belli was invalid. It was a legitimate concern among the Arab nations that a country founded and hugely supported by Britain and the USA was founded on the racial-religious principle that the area known as "Greater Israel", an area the size of which ranges from either the size of the British Mandate of Palestine to all lands between the Nile and the Euphrates (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This posed a serious risk to all powers, and they therefore attacked this rogue state. The western press may say that the Arab nations that attacked Israel were rogue states, but it was Israel that disturbed the status quo. It has been portrayed as a heroic victim state defending its borders, but that can only be true as long as they are not occupying other countries with their forces. "Remember that it was the Palestinians that started launching missiles into Israel. Even President Obama stated Israel has the right to self-defense when another group is raining missile down on the nation." Is firing white phosphorous at civilians in the Gaza Strip, killing nearly two thousand civilians (http://www.guardian.co.uk...); actively encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestinian land in the West Bank, kicking Palestinians out of their homes (http://query.nytimes.com...); and erecting a titanic wall around the West Bank that intrudes upon Palestinian territory at numerous points, and never intrudes upon Israeli territory (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is hardly self-defence. It is expansionism, and the Israeli, UK or US governments could not care less about any human rights violations, as they were perpetrated by a pro-west dictatorship, and not an anti-west democracy. Is occupying vast swathes of Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian territory contrary to the UN ruling really self-defence, or is Obama merely a Zionist apologist? Argument As an internationalist, I believe that the Mandate of Palestine should have been created as one country, in a secular, egalitarian democracy. Israel is none of those things. It is certainly not secular, as Jewish law governs many key aspects of national legislation, such as the lack of non-Jewish legal domestic marriages, the existence of a Jewish state religion, and the state language of Hebrew, which has been in place since its foundation in 1948, when Hebrew speakers made up 13% of the population. It is not egalitarian, as there is a severe disparity between people in Israel, whose average GDP per capita is roughly $32,312 (Se CIA World Factbook), while that of Palestine is a measly $2,900. This shows a blatant racist agenda on the Israeli government, who seek to build key employment sites and services on the Israeli side of the wall, which Palestinians have to queue for hours to enter so they ccan either go to work or access basic services such as healthcare or shopping for food. It is not a democracy, as according to the Economist Intelligence Unit"s Democracy Index, Israel itself is a "Flawed Democracy", while the occupied territories are an "Authoritarian Regime". Though Israel"s neighbours are all classed as either "Hybrid Regimes" or "Authoritarian Regimes",; this does not justify Israel"s existence, or its obnoxious expansionist policies.