Have recent atrocities by Israel allowed discussion of the existence of it as a bona fide state to occur, without screams of racism shouting the discussion down. It may be that the premise for the establishment of the state of Israel was built not on logic or reasonable analysis, but on horror and sympathy. Other religeons have not had states created for them – indeed the west is fighting to prevent the establishment of ISIS (maybe a silly example – so what about a Sikh state?).
So should Israel exist as a state? It could be argued that its establishment has destablised the whole region?
Also why are arguments that state, that the atrocity initiated by Hamas last year, needs to be considered in the context of the treatment of Palestinians over the past 50 years, dismissed as irrelevant or even racist. Deprived of land, their water poisoned, their olive groves burnt, the Palestinians have a very real grievance. Ignored by the international community for, like forever, it was no surprise that their outburst of violence was severe. The governments of the west ralied round immediately and stated that the state of Israel had a right to defend itself, and are thus complicit in the violence and near genocide wreaked on Gaza and innocent women and children (and many males). There were, and are, no santions against the illegal occupation by the IDF and settlers on the West Bank.
What are the arguments for the existance of Israel per se?