yes, it conflicts with logic.   which is why i stated it was outside the realm of my perception, leaving open space to provide your reasonings.  (im not from the US, if that was the reason for your choice of comparison btw)

well...both the realities of the world and the natures of the entities are different.  gaza and the west back are not unsatisfied colonies of israel.  britain and the US were not neighbours with conflicting claims of territory due to conflicts with other neighbours that resulted in the US never actually existing as a state.  etc etc..  the more i think about trying to make these examples the more my head hurts because they are nothing alike at all.  are you familiar with all or any of these four places you are mentioning ?

i wrote a couple paragraphs here but deleted them because i dont think it matters what i say when you dont even understand how the US and britain are different from israel and the palestinian territories

That's not true.

Terrorism is more often than not deeply connected to ideology.

Look at the IRA, the Basks (that Spanish minority), Breivik in Norway, the islamists currently occupying northern Mali, the Bali bombings, Chechen terrorism in Russia, Kashmir/India terrorism, the 9/11/Madrid/London bombings, American embassy bombings and whatnot all over the world, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, islamic terrorists in Thailand, the Sarin subway attacks in Japan, Al-Shabaab waging Jihad in Somalia, Timothy McVeigh, Taliban massacres of civilians in Afghanistan, the multitide of Shia versus Sunni terrorist attacks in Iraq.

All these are mainly ideologically motivated.

One merely needs to look at the psychology of terrorists. Some are mentally disturbed, like Breivik (although not mentally disturbed enough to qualify as insane). But one has to look at who the terrorists are, and why the slogan "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" exists. I said in my own sentence, the start of terrorism is desperation. The desperate individual then latches on to a pre-existing ideology. This isn't to say that all desperate people are terrorists, but all terrorists are seeking something that they feel they cannot get through normal life. They may not be poor (Bin Laden certainly wasn't), but they will often feel that what they desire cannot be obtained through normal means.

The IRA was born of those who were the more radical anti-British faction within Ireland, and dealt with centuries of oppression by the British to get to that point. Similarly so with the Basques and Spanish rule. Breivik was less-than-sane, but a lot of White Supremacists are people who feel that the world is out to get them, and who then scapegoat some other race, or, as Breivik did, members of their own race that they feel are selling out to the other races. When the Pakistani military failed, several times, to wrest Kashmir from India, terrorism was the answer. Muslims in Southeast Asia are often oppressed by Buddhist power-structures, Somalia is a pit of desperation, the Tamil know that they can never, democratically, have a proper voice in Sri Lanka. Sectarian violence in Iraq comes about because of abuses of power by one camp or another, the Shiites who have control under democracy, the Sunnis who seized power under Baathism. Modern Japan has a large number of disaffected young people, which helped enable Aum Shinrikyo to gain the ground that it did.

In no case am i saying that violent terrorism is justified, but most terrorists are usually sane, and simply believe that they have run out of options for their life, and so look to an ideology that gives them an easy answer. A young Muslim man who can't get a job, or who can't get a good job, or who feels out of place in this world, can find easy answers in radical Islam: "Kill yourself for Allah, go to martyr's heaven." A far easier solution than having to toil through this world of ours, but a route that most people would not take because no matter how fervently we profess our belief, only the desperate are willing to die for their faith.

One merely needs to look at the psychology of terrorists. Some are mentally disturbed, like Breivik (although not mentally disturbed enough to qualify as insane). But one has to look at who the terrorists are, and why the slogan "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" exists. I said in my own sentence, the start of terrorism is desperation. The desperate individual then latches on to a pre-existing ideology. This isn't to say that all desperate people are terrorists, but all terrorists are seeking something that they feel they cannot get through normal life. They may not be poor (Bin Laden certainly wasn't), but they will often feel that what they desire cannot be obtained through normal means.

The IRA was born of those who were the more radical anti-British faction within Ireland, and dealt with centuries of oppression by the British to get to that point. Similarly so with the Basques and Spanish rule. Breivik was less-than-sane, but a lot of White Supremacists are people who feel that the world is out to get them, and who then scapegoat some other race, or, as Breivik did, members of their own race that they feel are selling out to the other races. When the Pakistani military failed, several times, to wrest Kashmir from India, terrorism was the answer. Muslims in Southeast Asia are often oppressed by Buddhist power-structures, Somalia is a pit of desperation, the Tamil know that they can never, democratically, have a proper voice in Sri Lanka. Sectarian violence in Iraq comes about because of abuses of power by one camp or another, the Shiites who have control under democracy, the Sunnis who seized power under Baathism. Modern Japan has a large number of disaffected young people, which helped enable Aum Shinrikyo to gain the ground that it did.

In no case am i saying that violent terrorism is justified, but most terrorists are usually sane, and simply believe that they have run out of options for their life, and so look to an ideology that gives them an easy answer. A young Muslim man who can't get a job, or who can't get a good job, or who feels out of place in this world, can find easy answers in radical Islam: "Kill yourself for Allah, go to martyr's heaven." A far easier solution than having to toil through this world of ours, but a route that most people would not take because no matter how fervently we profess our belief, only the desperate are willing to die for their faith.

So your reasoning is that, because they're territories and not colonies, they have no right to be free from opression from another state? Why? Are humans in territories somehow less relevant than ones in colonies? What about when the whole state was the British Mandate of Palestine? Are you saying it's a case of first come, first served? That because Israel requested statehood before Palestine that Palestine no longer has the right?

Uh, there were conflicts with neighbours. If you thought that the reason why Israel/Palestine is different to US/England is neighbour conflicts, I guess you totally forgot about the British Canadian province, huh? No agreement to peace before US statehood as far as I saw. If there was, it was quickly breached in 1812.

The problem is, you're not seeing the double standards at play here. What can be seen as liberation to one is terrorism to another. What can be seen as the state of the US can be seen as British colonies under terrorist control to another. It all comes down to interests. What is in the best interests to the US? Middle eastern stability. How can that be achieved? Opression of the difference of opinion. You don't think America stoops to that? Take a look at the south American dictatorships supported during the Cold War as a desperate attempt to stop the flow of Communism.

continuing to show you have no grasp of the situation in any context.    there was going to be a state of palestine right alongside a state of israel.   it was the same blasted resolution, for a formation of two countries.   THE ARABS STOLE THE LAND AND TRIED TO "PUSH THE JEWS INTO THE SEA" 

the question now is...do i read the other two paragraphs you have written?  i think not actually.  i mean these are very simple things we have gone over that you dont understand, but act as if you are most knowledgeable about.   seriously..."because they asked first"??  smh. 

Continuing to show that you have no problem with the double standards you're displaying...

So let me get this straight. The Jewish vote to statehood included Palestine as well? Then why didn't it? Your claim is that the Arabs stole the land and tried to push the Jews into the sea. Was this before or after the statehood outcome? 

You realise that you're only going down a path that shows how illogical your story is, right? Why did Israel become a state but Palestine didn't...under the same resolution? Is there now a "Yes, but.." answer in the UN now? If the "Arabs stole the land" before the resolution, would it not have been withheld until the matter was resolved? If it happened after, wouldn't Palestine still have been a state today, or did it somehow get revoked? What are you trying to say here? It sounds like a cyclic fallacy. One could not happen because of the direct consequence of the other, and vice versa....at the same time.

You can go ahead and ignore my paragraphs. Ignorance to debate such matters only shows that you have no response, yet fail to recognise it. I asked YOU about the asking first, because of your ridiculous comment regarding "Palestine cannot claim statehood in the same way as America because it's not a colony" argument.