Israel is a peaceful country, only going to war when provoked. Israel does the most it can to protect civilians, to save innocent lives. For example, in the war it held against Hamas in February 2009, Israel called terrorists' houses to warn their families to get out before the house is bombed, and the weapons in it destroyed. Israel broadcasted on the Arab radio channels to get civilians out of places which were going to be bombed. Israel grieves for the Palestinian lives who are lost for no reason, and tries to bring the number of dead to a bare minimum.

The so called "invasion of Lebanon" mentioned by the opposition was caused by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, and the murdering of three of them. Israel fought the war in order to bring back its captured soldiers, not for purposes of land acquisition. Proof: after the war Israel did not keep the territories it had captured, and returned to it's original borders. Israel had to fight the Hizbullah guerillas who hid in built civilian areas, trying to make Israel look like it was killing innocents purposely.

Israel puts up settlements in the West Bank, because that is part of Israel's territory. Just like any other country is allowed to build in it's land, Israel is too.

How can the opposition claim that the Arabs were driven to this point if the Arabs were slaughtering Jews in riots as far back as twenty years before the establishment of the state? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots] If anybody was driven to a certain point, it was the Jews, who had to protect themselves from Muslims storming their homes and killing their children.

The opposition mentions "Jewish Terrorist Groups" that fought the British before the creation of the state of Israel. These so called "terrorist groups" did not target women and children. Besides, they were trying to make the British keep a promise they had made to the Jewish spies (NILI) who had helped them capture the land from the Turks. The British had proclaimed that the Jews could have a state (Arthur Balfur's proclamation), and lied.

The claims of the opposition that the Jews disbands any cultural meeting just for the sake of harming the Palestinian moral are false. Israel does the most it can to let the Palestinians live in comfort, as long as this comfort does not clash with the security of Israel and its citizens.

The opposition complains of American and British funding of Israel. Of course it's only funding Israel! Why should America and Britian fund terrorist entities like the Hamas whose entire goal is to slaughter a nation?

The opposition can not claim that the Muslims aren't attacking Israel for the sake of attacking- the whole Muslim belief is based on the sanctity of dying, the holiness of the martyrs. While Israel does the most it can to protect their women and children from the murdering Palestinians, the Muslims SEND their women and children to blow themselves up in Israel. Is this humane? Is this something the civilized western world should be supporting?

The opposition claims that other nations are not "overly aggressive" towards Israel. How would they explain the six major wars Israel has had in the past sixty one years, all started by the nations surrounding it? Which other nation has had, on average, a war every decade, started by it's enemies? This is not "overly aggressive"?

Israel responds with force only because it is surrounded by enemies, who send suicide bombers to kill the young and elderly. Israel must defend itself, just like any other country, so therefore it can not be accused of "building itself on another nation's sorrow". For years, Israelis have been hit by rockets, bombs and other missiles, and in Sderot, over 33% of Israeli children have post-traumatic stress disorder - a higher figure than in many parts of Gaza and the West Bank. The Jews originally offered to live alongside the Arabs in peace, as suggested by the 1947 UN partition plan. The Palestinians rejected the plan and went to war against the Jews. Why should they deserve to be called the victims, if they started the conflict?

Before the Zionist movement started, in the 19th century, the land was a barren, dead land. The Ottoman empire ruled in Israel, and they left it in this poor condition. When the Jews began coming to Israel, they bought many acres of land from the Turks, and changed the desert that was Israel into a thriving live area. As anyone who reads Mark Twain's book "The Innocents Abroad" will know, if it wasn't for the Jews, Israel would be a wasteland today. All this land was bought from the hard- earned money of European Jews - the US did not contribute a cent to the Jewish state until the late 1940s.

The Jews have waited to return to this land for thousands of years, and they have done a better job than anybody else, therefore they deserve this land.

The logic behind the state of Israel being legal is very simple: If you think that conquered land does not belong to the conquerer, but to the conquered, then it has been proven archeologically that the Jews were here before anyone else except the Canaanites - who are extinct and therefore can't claim the land. As a result, the land never belonged to the Palestinians but was always the birthright of every Jew, who's father should have been able to bequeath his son/daughter a piece of the land of Israel, had the Israelites not been conquered and driven off their land. If you think that conquered land does belong to it's conquerer (so that it's legitimate for the US/Britih settlers to have taken the land of the native americans - so that the US isn't built on 'illegally seized' land) - well the israelies are the latest of a long line of conquerers of this heavily disputed land - so it's theirs. In addition, In 1947 the UN proposed the partition plan, dividing up the state of Israel into a Palestinian state, an Israeli State and a Neutral area, belonging to both nations. In the original division, the Palestinian state was larger than the Jewish state, besides the fact that the Jewish parts were cut off from each other, with Palestinian land in between them. The Jews agreed to the partition plan suggested by the UN. The Palestinians, however, turned down the plan and proceeded to start a war against the Jews. This is called 'The War of Independence'. When the war was over, the state of Israel had captured many lands that according to the partition plan would have belonged to the Palestinians. This land was settled by the Israelis. Since the Palestinians had the option of keeping the land in the first place, and ultimately lost it in a war they created, they do not have the right to the land. I would also like to mention the fact the Jews have bought much of the disputed land from the Palestinians in the first place (before the end of the British Mandate), so legally it is theirs.

Yes, the state of Israel was created partly thanks to the holocaust. But the holocaust just shows that the Jews NEED this home. Two thousand years of oppression, all over the world; inquisition, pogroms etc. show that the Jews need a place to be safe. An independent army and police force which will not be biased against them, which will protect them from their many enemies, is a neccesity for the Jewish people. The Arabs have many other countries they can flee to, the Jews have only one.

All of Israel's wars have been in self defense.

The great victory of 1967? The one where Israel captured large amounts of land, which the world is now asking it to give back? The months before that war were filled with a fear of extinction- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were all threatening to capture all of Israel and throw everyone into the sea. The Jews in Israel were afraid of all being KILLED! There was a bitter joke circulating- "the last one to leave- should turn out the light". The Jews thought that this was it- the country had survived 19 years, and this was its end. Israel's enemies were boasting and bragging of their force, and telling everyone about the great conquest they were going to achieve, and how they were going to throw all the Jews into the sea. In the end, the Jews won the war, and captured land. So because Israel dared to survive, to stay alive against four armies who all wanted to destroy it- the world is against it. What were the Jews supposed to do? Sit back and wait for the millions of Arabs to murder them and their children?

Because the Jews were not all slaughtered in Israel's war of independence ('48-'49)- they are blamed by the whole world. Because Israel, in the surprise attack in '73, only lost 3000 soldiers, and managed to retain its control over its borders- the world blames Israel.

Because Israel still has the impudence to survive when the Palestinians clearly want it dead- the suicide bombers and terrorist attacks will testify for that- the world says that Israel is illegal?

Why is Israel the only country which is blamed for protecting itself? Why can't the world leave this peaceful country alone?

Almost all Israelis have grown up (and born) in the State of Israel; there are scarcely remaining Israelis who fought the Independence war. Similarly, there are scarcely remaining Palestinians who actually lived in what is for the past 61 years been and still is Israel. Since current generations of people had no influence on what happened 61 years ago, they should not be punished over it, or cling to this long-gone state of affairs. It is unjust to judge people based on their parents' actions.

It is understood, in this post-imperial era, that the well-being of a people should be determined by their own representatives, through their own government. The state of Israel is the state that embodies this idea for the population of the territories that compose it: it is the democratic government elected by all people living within its borders, "sans occupied territories" - Including all ethnicities, religions, etc.

Since the government is elected by the people in accordance with the principle of self determination, it is obviously legitimate.

The opposition has offered compliance with UN resolutions as a criterion for legitimacy. In the points above we disagree, but here we state that even if it were a criterion, it would still be on Israel's side.

A Jewish state in Israel was mandated by the UN resolution 181 from 29th November 1947. That resolution, which ordered two separate states for the two ethnicities of the overall territory, was declined by the Arabs but accepted by the Jews. The Palestinians to this day refuse to accept resolution 181 and instead claim the entire land to themselves.

------

Edit rebuttal: Arguments about the current ethnic composition of Israel are irrelevant to this particular point, as resolution 181 was not fully implemented because the Arabs rejected it and continue to reject it to this day, therefore it wasn't fully implemented. Also, the claim that these ethnic groups are devoid of rights is an outright lie. Israeli Arabs of all religions vote in elections and have parliamentary representation just like any other citizen.

The question of whether Israel is a legitimate state is, technically, yes, it is. It was created under UN mandate. Therefore, legally speaking, it is legitimate. However, that is not the point.

The question that should be asked is "should Israel have been created in the first place and what's going on now?"

Israel should not have been created in the first place, firstly. Secondly, the Jews were offered Uganda instead of Palestine - they refused this. And, thirdly, Israel is the worst perpertrator of breaching Human Rights Law and International Law. It is the most racist and racially aggressive state in the world today, not to mention one of the most non-racially aggressive, falling behind the United States.

It should not have been created in the first place due to the fact that Jews are, according to the Torah and Jewish law, supposed to live amongst people - to be permanent exiles and outcasts, not to have their own specific land given to them. This is what the Neterui Karta (an Anti-Zionist, Orthodox Jewish organisation) has claimed. Even if this were not the case, what right would China have, for example, in invading the UK and taking Norther Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and then throughout history slowly taking parts of England and refusing democratic elections to become manifest, along with daily incurcions into English territory, humiliation, murder, imprisonment, violations of human rights, breaches of international law and, to top it off, a huge concrete wall that refuses us entry into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and limits and controls our supplies. Then, occasionally, it bombs London to pieces? The fact that Israel is stated in the Torah as being a homeland for Jews (but also that Jews are exiles) is not a good enough reason to dismantle a pre-existing state and to have killed tens of thousands of their peoples, along with causing, ultimately, millions of refugess whilst the rest living within the occupied territories are living in ghettos.

The holocaust is used as a justification for the establishment of a Jewish state - it was largely created out of a profound sympathy for the Jewish people - a sympathy rightly deserved. The Jews suffered immensely, and that should never be forgotten. But to then seemingly forget what suffering was gone through, to cause suffering to another people is in many ways more horrific than the initial suffering they first endured. If one knows what it's like to suffer to extremity, then I would not expect that person to then consciously do it to someone else who was just as innocent as they were. This is sick.

What's going on now is the persistence of all the things stated above. There is no end in sight of this. Peace deals are always rejected by Israel if they are not deemed as fair. They are rarely rejected by the Palestinians and, if they are, the deals are not fair in the first place. The Palestinians peoples should not accept a peace deal that is unfair. Neither should Israel. However, the Palestinians are the ones suffering here, not the Israeli's. (Yes, Israel does occasionally get struck by rockets from Hamas and suicide bombers, but this is nothing in comparison to what the Palestinians go through every day. I am not saying that I agree with these attacks on Israel, but it should be realised that they are almost non-existent in relativity to Israel vs. the Palestinians).

If what you want is a peace deal, then it should look something like this:-

Israel must withdraw to the Pre-1967 war borders - remove itself from all occupied territories.

Give East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine.

Rid all blockades, sanctions, controls etc. on palestine.

Allow Hamas to rule as the legitimate government of Palestine (which it is).

Cease the demand of recognising that Israel is a Jewish state (an odd demand anyway given that its demand is obviously racist).

And ultimately, leave Palestine alone.

The Palestinians in return will cease all rocket attacks and bombings. (Funny how this is the only thing that the Palestinians are guilty of, when comparing it to the list of what Israel would have to do in order to make the deal fair).

So, yes, Israel itself is perfectly legitimate. It shouldn't be, but it is. However, what Israel is now/currently is not legitimate, given that it is in direct violation of UNSC 242 (to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders).