Why is ISIS Worse than the 1948 Israeli State?

[Aractus]

I'm hearing all over the radio that Trump is accusing Obama and Clinton of starting ISIS. I don't want a laundry list of the evils of Islam, but I would like to know why it's okay for the Israelis to invade Muslims and drive them out of their homes as they did in 1948 to establish their state, but wrong for Muslims to have a state.

The simple fact is that it's not any worse, and not any worse than Saudi Arabia either (which was started in much the same way as DAESH - with a Jihadist movement). Saudi, like the US, has supported Jihadist movements against other middle east countries for decades.

With Israel we have a convergence of problems. 1. There's an Indigenous population who's land has been invaded by the last great British colony. Britan actually tried to colonise the North Sentinel Island at some point in the past (inhabited by a primitive tribe known as the Sentinelese people), who now violently reject contact with other peoples. They are so primitive that they are still living in the stone age, and don't even know how to make fire. Now Britain's attempt at colonising the Sentinelese failed dismally because the two of the hostages they kidnapped (in order to indoctrinate) died! And probable as a result of western disease the Sentinelese had no antibodies to defend against. They kidnapped an elderly "couple" and four children, the elderly couple died and the children were returned to the island. Ever since then they have violently rejected contact, whenever outsiders come they are met with a "customary hail of arrows" warning them away (this happens whenever the Indian government sends a surveillance ship, helicopter, or plane). In the link provided you'll see in 2006 they killed two fisherman who drifted into their shallow waters, buried them in shallow graves, and then warned away the Indian coastguard from recovery of the bodies with their customary hail of arrows.

We have a similar problem in Australia, there's a similar problem in the United States, there's not so much a problem in Britain itself, but there's a big problem Japan, and there's of course the problem in Canada as well. NZ also has this problem - in fact, most countries have the problem of there being an Indigenous population foreign to the occupiers. India's response to this problem at the moment is to let the Sentinelese people remain un-contacted. There are ethical arguments both for and against this approach, of course! If they were successfully contacted they could be offered foreign aid in the form of modern medical care, and they could be liberated from the stone age. But, if they don't want to be contacted by a clearly more advanced civilisation that has planes, helicopters, and ships, perhaps it's best to leave them be. The other thing is we could easily suggest that their fear of other people was entirely created by the British in the 19th century when they kidnapped 6 people, two of whom died! They wouldn't have been able to kidnap anyone if they were mowed down by a hail of arrows on their approach, so it stands to reason they weren't as fearful at that time.

So let's get back to the point here. NZ treats their indigenous population very very well - they are a model for the world. Canada, I believe also treats their population well. India treats at least the Sentinelese people well (that's not be confused with mainland Indian Indigenous peoples). Japan treats theirs like shit, the USA looks at theirs as being a problem that just won't go away. Australia is better than the USA in their treatment of Indigenous peoples, but worse than Canada, and much worse than NZ. Right so we know where we all stand, then we have Israel. As I mentioned earlier, Britain doesn't actually to my knowledge anyway have an Indigenous population. And that's actually true for most of Europe.

So we have Britain, that doesn't understand anything about Indigenous affairs because they don't have an Indigenous population, and the USA who doesn't treat their Indigenous peoples particularly well by global standards who support Israel in the present day. Now the thing I haven't yet mentioned is that Israel has a right to exist - point 2. The way Israel treats the Indigenous population (the Palestinian people) is absolutely atrocious. It is a magnitude worse than Japan, the next worse offender.

So they have a right to exist, and I can prove this very easily. List out the number of Secular countries, then the number of Islamic countries, then the number of Christian countries, then the number of Atheist countries. Once you've done that, list out the number of Jewish countries. Now OK you might say that doesn't prove anything, well anti-Semitism was so rife in the early 20th century that Jews were not welcome anywhere. Well, they were welcome in some places, and one was Palestine.

So Israel has a right to exist, but Palestine also has a right to sovereignty. ISIL is yet to be seen, frankly I think they have legitimacy as a State now, just as Israel does. Like it or not, they have legitimacy and we can go over that more later.