Israel should never have been founded.

"I thought the enlightenment moved us past this stone age thinking that whomever has the largest club is in the right."Yes. That's the point of a War of Independence.Seeing as Israel was the one attacked, I don't find anything barbaric about defending yourself from others, and actually winning. Many great Wars of Independence, or similar wars were fought during and after the Enlightenment. Many were a product of the Enlightenment itself.Examples include the Communists war against the Czar, and the French's War of Independence. Other's include the American War of Independence and India's war against Britain.You know what nation was formed through a proper election and the 'love of the people'? Nazi Germany. Your point that a nation is bad and shouldn't have existed because it was formed out of civil war, or in this case, self-defense, is invalid.http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk..."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. This posed a serious risk to all powers, and they therefore attacked this rogue state."To start, Greater Israel was only an idea held by Revisionist Zionists. The state was ran by Labor Zionists who opposed the idea for nearly 30 years AFTER the war took place. It wasn't until the far later half of the 1900's that the only Prime Minister to ever support the idea held power. Modern Israel has no ties to the idea.The original Revisionist Zionists, the one's the Arabs went to war over, only viewed Greater Israel has being Palestine and Transjordan.You basically believe the Arabs were justified in attacking a tiny nation over an idea held by small groups, and rejected by it's government. Remember this for later on.I should mention, your own source gave your argument away.http://en.wikipedia.org..."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."Israel was only occupying the West Bank. It has a logical right to do so, since the West Bank literally runs through Jerusalem, covering almost 2/3rd of the city, and surrounding the entire city, even surrounding the only access route. In fact, take a look at the situation, if you put all bias aside, you will understand why the West Bank is dangerous if not occupied.http://en.wikipedia.org...Israel left Gaza in 2005. After an election, Hamas took power. Israel, the US, and the EU refused to acknowledge Hamas, as is their right to do so. They did so because one could label Hamas a terrorist group before labeling them a Government group. You know the craziest thing? All Israel and the US wanted before they would recognize Hamas was for them to recognize Israel, renounce violence, and make good on past agreements.Hamas proved the accusation that they were more of a terrorist group when they forcibly replaced Gaza's other elected officers (the Fatah) with their own.http://www.guardian.co.uk...Israel only stopped sending the Palestinians aid through the Hamas-ran Government. They continued sending the Palestinians aid, but through non-government groups. The Palestinians received Israeli aid regardless of Hamas, who would have likely used the money to attack Israel.http://www.nytimes.com...;Remember how you thought the earlier Arabs had the right to attack Israel because of an idea that held no power in Israel? Well the Hamas actually has power... Full power over Palestine, that they took by force. Israel actually has the right to feel concerned."Is firing white phosphorous at civilians in the Gaza Strip, killing nearly two thousand civilians; actively encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestinian land in the West Bank, kicking Palestinians out of their homes; and erecting a titanic wall around the West Bank that intrudes upon Palestinian territory at numerous points, and never intrudes upon Israeli territory is hardly self-defence."The average Civilian to Militant death ration in a Middle East civil war is around 4:1. The Civilian to Militant death ration in Palestine is 1:30. That is astonishing. Why is it so low? Because Israel has so many rules in place JUST to protect Palestinian civilians.Civilians will die in war, and Israel is among leading nations (if not the top) in preserving civilian life.http://www.haaretz.com...The wall around the West Bank is again for great reason. Again, review the map.http://en.wikipedia.org..."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?"Israel is only occupying Golan Heights, in Syria. The land is small, and hardly counts as "vast swathes of Lebanese, Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian territory."Obama might be Zionist, but you're no doubt anti-Zionist. What's your point? It's irrelevant to the Resolution.Counter 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."Sweden is Socialist, China is Communist, and the US is a Constitutional Republic. What's your point? Just because a nation isn't exactly what you think a nation should be, doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to exist.Iran is also not "a secular, egalitarian democracy." In fact, Israel matches your criteria more than most Arab nations. I don't understand why this matters?"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 can either go to work or access basic services such as health care or shopping for food."Israel withdrawn completely from Gaza, as Gaza wanted. Gaza's economy dropped when this happened. You can not kick someone out, and get mad at THEM when it cases economic drop.Gaza and the West Bank was autonomous. Their economies are theirs to work on. Things might be better if Hamas spent more money on it's people, and less on firing missiles into Israel.Israel is, however, still sending aid to the Palestinians. Again, only so much they can do. Like I said, Gaza is autonomous and self-governing."Israel itself is a "Flawed Democracy", while the occupied territories are an "Authoritarian Regime". Though Israel"s neighbors are all classed as either "Hybrid Regimes" or "Authoritarian Regimes",; this does not justify Israel"s existence, or its obnoxious expansionist policies."The US also is not a true Democracy. What's your point? And whatever Gaza and the West Bank is is solely up to them. While Israel may not recognize Hamas, those places are self-governing. Whatever their government type is is completely their responsibly.This in no way has anything to do with justifying Israel existence. Israel also does not have an Expansionist viewpoint. Their prime minister even mentioned such ideas were over long ago, and anyone who thinks that way is deluding themselves.http://www.haaretz.com...Israel has actually given up most occupations over the past few decades. Palestine started firing missiles on Israel after Israel withdrew from Gaza.The 1949 Armistice, signed by Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Palestine, grants and justifies Israel's Right to Exist.http://www.peaceau.org...