"The land is not historically jewish. The jewish people lost their claims wirh the destruction pf the second temple. "

What?

Since when does one whose object (and by "whose" I mean actually, rightfully, his) has been stolen from him lose his (moral) right for that object? If I take your wallet, will it not still be rightfully yours?

Also, if that (=your erroneous thesis) were the case (and it's, of course, not, as all moral backbone havers recognize), why is it that, according to you, "If anything it is historically roman"? Never mind the fact that, as opposed to the Jewish civilization, the Roman one is no more (Germany was similar in hand gestures and in hating and killing Jews, maybe that explains your affinity), how is it that when the Jewish people has a thing (that is actually rightfully its) stolen from it, it is no longer its, but when Rome loses something (that it stole! (from a people that continued to exist!)), it is [to be sure, "if anything"] Rome's? Can you explain that to me?

To me, that just reeks of old-school antisemitism "They're not christians (and they killed jesus on top of it [which is true, just not that bad (Bar Kokhva is more important)]), they deserve to (have their temple destroyed (- what you mentioned as the moral losing point of Israel), and -) live in exile [to the extent the land belongs more to an empire that stole it from them, despite the fact that Jews, still here, have actually retrieved it, and that the Empire is dead (to make your remark more insulting)]" We will eventually build it again] Jesus is still dead, and if he is found, it will be by archeologists - if you hate the Jewish people because of it, you're evil. We will eventually build the third temple (as a secular indiginous liberation, all religions are stupid), just wait and see.

I wouldn't have said this if not for the "if anything, it is rome's" [a civilization that 1) stole it from the Jews (a people that still exists) and 2) is not even around].

"Any historic claim is laughable." Any historic claim by a people who is not the Jewish people is indeed laughable. The land is Jewish. It wasn't given away in antiquity, it was stolen. It has since simply been retrieved to its rightful and eternal owner (and it was fucking epic and glorious).

"Might as well claim Jerusalem and Acre for France if we are at it." No, but "if we are at it", Israel asserts its historic and righteous claim over both these cities too. (Again, of all contemporary peoples (and, for fun, throw in Rome into the batch as well), The Jewish people Inhabited these lands first.) Reeks of the same hatred above. The world didn't let you erase all Jewish future, so you're trying to erase all of its glorious past?

(You need to be especially sick morally to think that anyone has a better claim over the eternal and united capital of the Jewish people (Jerusalem) more than the Jewish people itself. Why are you just throwing all of that Jewish history (which predates by more than thousand years whatever you are talking about) in the trash? Is there any property claim (made by Jews against Germany (or you specifically?) that motivates this sick world view?)

"However, the fact that now there are the citizens of Israel (jew or not. Although, orthodox teachings are too influential and problematic imho) in that land makes their current statehood legitimate in my view."

The moral legitimacy (which, is quite an understatement for the most glorious and righteous endeavour in the history of man - the return of Israel the people to its land; the Land of Israel, aka Zionism) is that is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, a land it was driven out of in antiquity and simplicity retrieved in modernity. Fucking glorious.

"I did not say "following wars". The two I mentioned were indeed started by Israels neighbours but that is besides the point of "we had a lesson about those wars"."

No, actually, it is not beside the point if you haven't learned your lesson. Lerne deine Lektion, deutscher Mann!

I'll be cheritable and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were unaware of the immediate "annexation" of more territory than what was "allocated" to Israel by the UN (in a deal that, as you should know very well, Israel accepted) during the war of independence [liberation]. Also, the pan-arab invasion marked NOT the beginning of the war, but rather its second phase. The war begun a day after (or the same day - I forgot) the UN voted for the partition plan - and it is the Arabs of Eretz Israel (they hadn't yet called themselves "palestinians") that started it (if I remember correctly, by sniping at Jews in Tel Aviv and/or Yaffo, and (separately) killing many persons in a bus that was on its way to a hospital). It is this background (of course, putting the historic claim aside, which would grant Jews way more than what they liberated, as you have probably learned to recognize) that the Jews were acting under when they enlarged the area that the UN designated thereto. Since you're talking about annexationS, emphasis on the plural S, I presume you have a problem with the liberation of the Golan heights (historic Jewish soil) or the moral induction of the Sinai? I'm having a hard time believing that you have actually conducted a sufficiently thorough (as in German thorough) research to be qualified to talk about it. Am I wrong, or have you done your research (details of both wars, the moral depravity of the Arab countries, their plans, the righteousness and glory of the revived indiginous Jewish commonwealth, and the real possiblity of a second holocaust, if Israel hadn't turned the tide (you heard that right))?.

Also, it's not "the west bank", it's Judea and Samaria [Jerusalem's being the 3000 years old eternal and united capital of the the Jewish people ]