I don't understand the back and forth thing....
It's more like 1000 israeli missiles to 1 missile from gaza ratio.
Despite US media reports Israel is aggresor per usual.
If Israel is the aggressor, it's because it's surrounded by millions of militants who want it destroyed. Israel has done some things I don't condone, but in general terms, Israel is a tiny Jewish state in a vast sea of Muslims, many of whom hate Israel and want to see it wiped out, and Israel has already given up much of its land, so I'm with Israel.
This to me is combining two situations which are related, but not the same thing.
Israel is dealing with Palestine. They are surrounded by countries whose motives at the very least would be called ambiguous and problematic, but they aren't actually invading those countries. They're not dealing with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt here, even by proxy. They're dealing with a situation which has remained antagonistic and mostly unchanged for decades in Palestine.
I don't think is really fair to excuse the treatment of Palestine on Israel's tenuous relations with their neighbors.
If Palestinians are so bent on having their own state, I don't see why one of the big Muslim countries nearby, such as Iraq or Egypt, couldn't just give the Palestinians a piece of land.
Why would the Palestinians (or any of their nearby Islamic neighbors) walk away from a situation they see as outright larceny of something that rightly belongs to them?
Also, why would the nearby Islamic neighbors endorse such an action, or enable it by giving the Palestinians land (and what kind of cost would that entail for the Palestinians? I don't know if you've noticed, but people are kind of serious about land disputes over there)? They'd be ceding more land to Israel, whom many in the region consider a viable and persistent threat and interloper, and allowing Israel to stop focusing on Palestine and Hamas and start focusing on everyone else.
Really the only winner there is Israel, and the people the conflict would ultimately kill if it persists.
Israel also isn't invading the Palestinians. The Palestinians have their own sort of "designated areas" in Israel, but these don't constitute a nation (more like large ethnic neighborhoods), and this is against the will of Israel in the first place. Like it or not, Israel is a sovereign nation, long recognized as such. The Palestinians wanting their own state carved out of Israel would be like a bunch of illegal immigrants (Mexican or otherwise) here in Southern California wanting to carve out their own separate nation.
And to respond to nick, I disagree that Israel was "given its own state because of religious persecution." The Jews were certainly persecuted (always have been, probably always will be), but this wasn't because of their religion, but simply because they're Jewish. Many Westerners justifiably decry the ethnic cleansing in places such as Serbia, but seem to forget that this is precisely what the Palestinians want to do to Israel. And Israel is somehow in the wrong for defending not only its sovereignty but its very existence. I think Israel would leave the Palestinians alone if the Palestinians left them
I know that many people don't believe what the Bible says, but the Bible is clear on the history of this region and this issue. The history is kind of long, but put simply, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a longstanding family feud: God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites (as they were then called)—and much more land, by the way, than what present-day Israel holds; these were the descendants of Israel, formerly called Jacob, who was a son of Isaac. Isaac's brother, Ishmael, was also given land by God, but this land was to the south of Canaan (Israel), in what is now called the Arabian peninsula (Ishmael's descendants became known as Arabs). The descendants of Jacob's brother, Esau, were known as Edomites, and they too lived south of Canaan/Israel. Over time, the Edomites essentially merged with the Arabs.
When Islam began to spread (by the sword, of course), Arabs (pretty much all of whom became Muslim) began to spread out, trying to conquer more areas; they went into Canaan/Israel about the 7th century AD, and then the Muslim Turks made a push into Canaan/Israel around the 10th century AD. It was at this time that these Arabs began calling themselves "Palestinians" and began laying claim to that area.
The terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" aren't even mentioned in the Bible, and didn't originate until around the Byzantine era. These terms derive from "Philistine," the former people group that lived in what is now the Gaza Strip. If there were any actual Philistines still living, they'd have a bit more of a legitimate argument for possessing the Gaza Strip (though not really, since God gave that land to the Israelites), but that's neither here nor there, since there are essentially NO remaining Philistines, and the people who now call themselves Palestinians are actually of Arabian descent, and the have plenty of ancestral land south of Israel. That's why I said one of the nearby Muslim/Arab countries should just give a chunk of land to the Palestinians.
In short, Israel had the land first, and they had it long before various Arab groups invaded or European colonists arrived. Secularists could make the argument that the Canaanites were there before the Israelites—and from a historical point that would be accurate—but the Canaanite peoples essentially no longer exist. So if nothing else, this issue boils down to common law—out of all the living people groups trying to claim the Holy Land, Israel has the oldest claim, so therefore has the right to own it.
But as I said before, this isn't really about land. The Palestinians are mostly Arab and Muslim, and Arabs and Muslims have pretty much always hated Israel and wanted it destroyed. That still holds true. The land issue is sort of a red herring, and unfortunately the United Nations (which I find to be absolutely useless) is a great enabler of this anti-Semitism.