Is there really a “crises” between the USA and Israel? I’m not buying it. Diplomatic hand-slapping notwithstanding, Israel has been and will remain a staunch ally of the US, and the US a staunch ally of Israel.
You realize that, in this very thread, I’ve explicitly said that I think that the granting of the building permits referenced in the OP was unwise, and that I also criticized all the major Israeli parties for pandering to the Haredi and settler communities.
For those reading along check the time stamps. And the time stamps on my previous answers to the same question. The same question has been asked, and answered, several times. I’m not even sure if that’s going to count as a “personal jab” at this point, but I’d rather not have anybody joining the thread late think that I really didn’t answer the question.
Since you invented this straw man and since you are clearly making inflammatroy comments that have no connection to the thread, you are on notice that your next similar threadshitting will get you a Warning.
You haven’t answered the question at all. I’m interested in whether the UN partition decision in 1947, which most people would say allowed the creation of Israel, shouldn’t have happened due to ongoing Jewish terrorism. Should the UN have said that there can be no concessions to terrorism and demanded a complete cessation of Jewish violence before making any decision? That’s the specific question I’d like you to answer. If anybody can see the answer to the question anywhere in this thread can you let me know please?
Yep, same question asked and answered multiple times, sames mistakes pointed out multiple times.
As for your repeated error that the partition plan created Israel, yep, cleared up that mistake too.
Like I said “Not only did I answer, I proved that you were factually incorrect, yet again.”
You are repeating a question whose premises have been shown to be false-to-facts and whose punchline has been shown to have nothing to do with anything that’s been said anywhere. Acknowledging the factual errors, correct them, and then see if there’s anything to base a question on. As it’s related, you might also want to correct your massive factual error when you claimed that Israel refused to negotiate until violence ceased when in fact some of the most significant (and well known) spates of negotiation occurred when violence was steadily and profoundly escalating against Israel. Especially since you used that factual error to prop up the bogus bit of your question (based on something nobody said anywhere) as to whether or not it would somehow be wrong to negotiate until all violence was stopped.
If you ask a question that isn’t predicated on factual error, strawmanning and non-sequitor, it might even be possible to answer it. As it stands now, it deserves as much of an answer as “So have you stopped beating your wife?”
Well, you answered a very interesting question, just not the one you were asked. Oversimplified, the question is if it was legitimate for Israel to use terroristic methods to achieve the goals of insurgency, why is that legitimacy denied to the Palestinians?
You answer appears to be a carefully sculpted definition of “terrorism” that gracefully exempts Israeli insurgents from any charge of terrorism, hence, you have no need to explain any discrepancy. It has little or nothing to do with whether or not “…Israel refused to negotiate until violence ceased…”, so any rebuttal of that point is irrelevant the question asked.
Just stopped by to see if the [del]combatants[/del] contributors in this thread had reached a consensus yet on avenues to Mideast peace.
Doesn’t seem like it.
My own feeling on this particular brouhaha is that the Israeli action in announcing new home construction in East Jerusalem during Biden’s visit was an insult to the U.S and significantly detracted from peace efforts - and that the U.S. would be perfectly justified in sending a further message to Israeli leaders on this score - namely, painful aid sanctions until such construction plans are derailed.
Penalties of this sort are justifiable no matter who is misusing the support of their allies.
It also strikes me that if you are frustrated with the inability to swing someone (Finn for example) to your point of view, attacking them personally is an excellent indicator that your powers of logic and persuasion stink.
Ah…was that the question? Hell, why didn’t you just say so…that’s an easy one. Israel didn’t exist as a country when said ‘terroristic methods’ were used…and the main groups involved (as well as Israel when it DID get around to becoming a country) denounced the groups responsible for them and pretty much reined them in, marginalizing and curtailing the groups who used them. Further, you may have had a point, oh, say 60 odd years ago, that the Palestinian’s could reply in kind to such tactics (leaving aside who burned down who’s castle in the swamp first, or who was responding to attacks on their civilian population first). Today, not so much.
brightly Hope that cleared everything up. Can we move on now?
You say " partition the land so that two ethnic groups could achieve self determination." and I say “the UN decided to give Israel a state” or words to that effect. The bottom line is it was the UN partition decision in 1947 that was the legal basis for the formation of the state of Israel. If the international community via the UN hadn’t agreed to any partition then any Israeli state would have had no legal basis. So you’re just dodging around trying to avoid answering the question, aren’t you?
If you ever get round to answering the question I’ll post a bunch of links showing Sharon, Netanyahu (first time around) Peres etc. all saying no negotiations without an end to terrorism. But answer the question.