You’re the one making the claims, aren’t you?
The last time this subject came up, you said you had no basis for comparison and had no idea what the causality counts were in recent US wars. Have you found a cite?
I agree.
If you know who he is and he is sometimes surrounded by children and he is somtimes NOT surrounded by children, you have some duty to try and kill him when he is NOT surrounded by children, no?
Do you want breathing room or do you want peace? I’m not saying you should stop fighting, I’m saying that your bigger battle is to win hearts and minds. Why is it that every military power thinks that they can beat the other guy into submission while at the same time believing that they themselves could never be beaten into submission?
Just looking at the pie chart.
Your argument is noone helped Israel fight the war of 1948 (other than by lending materiel support) so the fact that the UN created Israel by resolution didn’t actually do anything. On the contrary, creating Israel on paper is the foundation on which Israel is built.
Let me ask you a question. But for things like the Balfour declaration and the UN reolution, do you think Israel would exist today? I agree taht without winning the war of 1948, Israel would not exist today but there was nothing to fight for without the act of the UN.
OK fine, isn’t it discriminatory(although if I passed a law banning mexicans from gaining citizenship through marriage or place of birth, most people would call it racist but I will settle for discriminatory)?
What security purpose is served by letting a Palestinian marry an Israeli and stay in Israel but not gain citizenship?
I still can’t believe you are trying to defend this law rather than admit that Israel is simply wrong about this.
Israel, the nation, would exist whether the UN declared it did or not.
For years, the UN refused to recognize the seperate existance of Taiwan from China. Taiwan exists, nonetheless.
So you think that the law should allow Palestinians to become Israeli citizens if they renounce their Palestinian citizenship, how about teh children of palestinians and israelis, are they claiming Palestinian nationality?
They are already in Israel and they are married to Israelis (or are the children of Israelis), they have Israeli plates don’t they?
Wait a minute. These people are in Israel LEGALLY, they are not infiltrating anything, Israel isn’t trying to expel them, they are just preventing them from voting and . They are married to Israeli citizens, they just can’t become citizens by marriage because they are Palestinian. How does this law prevent suicide bombing?
I don’t think they are not really worried about the millions of Syrian refugees who are trying to implement their right of return. And I don’t think Israel is being incompetent, I think theya re effectively slowing downt he demographic shift by applying special rules to palestinians.
Ah so the purpose of that discriminatory law is in fact to preserve the Jewish nature of israel.
You make a very fine (almost invisible) distinctionwhen you say the UN’s creation of the state of Israel caused the war that resulted in the state of Israel.
Finally.
No I think Israelis are Israeli even the Israeli immigrants are Israeli and I have said repeatedly that the only thing worse than millions of palestinian refugees would be millions of palestinian refugees, millions of israeli refugees and a shooting war in the middle east.
No.
I asked for a viable plan, you returned with an immediate withdrawal allowing Hamas to import unlimited arms and putting them within rocket range of every Israeli citizen.
Also no.
Your claim was that:
That is fictional. *The pie chart actually shows that there are more resolutions that mention the words “Palestine” or “Palestinian”. *
Yet again you are wrong on the facts.
The only nation that lended any “material support” was Czechlovakia and even that wasn’t true official policy.
You’ve had that error refuted too, why are you still using it? The resolution on paper did nothing, wasn’t accepted by the involved parties, did not inform the boundaries, etc… the foundation was self determination. I’ve pointed this out to you before, you are rationalizing to support your narrative.
If Israel said “we are declaring independence because God granted this land to us”, would you be claiming that God created Israel?
Israel used the UN resolution as a justification? Yes. The UN resolution did anything? No. I’ve asked you several times to point out what the resolution did, can you finally tell me something?
And you cite the Balfour Declaration, that Britain reneged on and which did nothing, as another basis. This again shows that your argument is simply wrong.
They wouldn’t have wanted self determination or to defend themselves once Britain withdrew? You really believe that?
You mean like what they already did when they annexed East Jerusalem?
How does not giving foreign nationals Israeli license plates maintain security?
Your argument isn’t exactly objective when it privileges the claims of those who didn’t own land on which they were living to a “right” to return to it, especially since all the other people at the same time period who were part of population transfers, from Europe to India, have no such “right”.
Oh, I missed the one from the saudi site. OK so Arafat should have taken that deal when it was offered. Will we look back some day and say that israel should have taken Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia ?
Already addressed that. Immediately withdrawing and allowing Hamas to import weapons and get within range of every single Israeli isn’t exactly a plan for “peace”.
Israel isn’t Taiwan. Explain to me how Israel would exist withought the groundwork laid by the Uk and the UN?
No I made no claims about the civilian to combatant casualty ratio. Someone made the claim that 2:1 was pretty good.
Get this, the regional sovereign would have fallen, the British would have been given a mandate and then withdrawn, and the proto-Israelis would have declared that they wanted self determination and then a war would have been fought that determined the geography of Israel.
I know, what’re the odds?
And you keep mentioning the UK while ignoring that the UK reneged on its promises to Israel, frustrated the creation of the state of Israel by allowing the Arabs to prepare for war while withdrawing from Israeli territory last, arming those same Arabs and capturing and imprisoning tens of thousands of Jews fleeing for Palestine ever after the UN resolution and, in fact, even after the creation of the state of Israel.
You have, several times. You’ve claimed that Israel isn’t doing enough to minimize civilian casualties and yet you can’t show any combat, at all, where militants in a dense urban environment use human shields and wear no uniforms that has a beter than 1:2 ratio.
Is it any better now?
Huh? The UN’s announcement was a mere signal. The end result was decided, as these things usually are, by violence.
Again, Huh? When did I ever deny it?
It isn’t a comment aimed at you, specifically; rather about the motives of over-emphasis on Israel, generally.
What “groundwork” are you referring to? In the immediate pre-war of independance period, the UK did all it could to avoid and discourage proto-Israeli nationalism, before trowing up their hands, throwing in the towel, and leaving; the UN created a 'partition plan" that was rejected by Israel’s neighbours and never implemented.
Certainly, the actions of the UK in signing the Balfour declaration were somewhat significant, but that was a long time in the past by the time of the War of Independance. Any objective read of the situation is that Israel came into being without much in the way of help from any other nation or organization.
The example of Taiwan proves that UN “lack of recognition” by no means prevents a nation from, in fact, existing.
Its not viable because you don’t like it and you don’t trust the Palestinians?
True, merely mentioning Palestine doesn’t mean the resolutions are against Palestine but it doesn’t mean theya re against israel either. I guess the mention doesn’t really mean anything but the focus on the middle east is noted.
Because history would not have played out as it did if the Uk and the UN did not lay the groundwork.
I’m saying that there wouldn’t have been anything like a national identity to fight for without the groundwork laid by the UK or the UN.
The discriminatory law was passed more recently than that.
We are talking about people who are either married to or the children of Israeli citizens.
Did you even look at the population distributions at 1948? Israel was going to end up with 45% palestinian population and Palestine was going to end up with 99% Palestinian population. More land was owned by Palestinains than jews (by far) and once again you are saying that because some people did bad stuff to jews, Jews get to do bad stuff to Palestinians. Did Europe take in the Palestinians? If not then you stole from Peter because Paul stole from you.
What sort of two state plan would NOT allow Hamas to do what you say? I mean by that reckoning, the only acceptable solution is either the status quo or a demilitarized state without sovereign power that is policed by Israel to make sure they stay demilitarized. Would you take that deal if it was offered to Israel?
The PA is demoralized and appears more or less impotent - it seems to fear making any change, because change is likely to be for the worse; it cannot make concessions, without appearing weak.
The situation of the Gazans under Hamas has, of course, gone from bad to worse.
The lesson here is that the mere fact that an organization isn’t corrupt, and provides good social services, etc. does not mean you should support it.
In Israel, meanwhile, those advocating making unilateral concessions in exchange for peace have been undercut and discredited by events. Making unilateral concessions appears to have resulted in the situation in Gaza - it emboldened Hamas and led to further violence; Israeli peace initiatives with the PA led nowhere, as the PA appears to insist on conditions which no Israeli can accept (right of return, loss of Jerusalem). In history, how many sides that have lost a conflict have insisted that the victors hand over their freaking capital city? 
This has resulted in the triumph of hardcore rejectionists like Bibi, who will never I think agree to anything.