Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it's not. The Military took over a civilian site for Military use. A warning was sent they disregarded it. When has a Israeli blown up a site that was 100% civilian? The hospital where the top floor was a rocket launching site? The school that was a rocket storage facility? The soccer field where the stands were multiple rocket launch sites? The apartment building being used as a rocket launch site? Now let's see what real Terrorists do. Suicide bombings on civilian buses. Launching rockets at yellow school buses. Launching rockets at towns and not caring what they hit, yet not launching rockets at known Israeli military sites. Launching rockets at as civilian airport where the POTUS of the US shuts downs flights into Israel and let's not forget the rocket that landed outside of Jerusalem. If you think this is Apples to Apples then everyone in this thread knows what you are.
I already gave the specifics as to who died as a result of that act of terrorism, and to go on about this will be considered "obsessive" by those who love the heavy rhetoric. No need to repeat ourselves in any case. If you also want to justify the likes, don't act like I'm some sort lone voice about this well documented history. Take it up with the unsuspecting people killed and the families who lost their loved ones, at least the civilians then, all who never saw their premature death coming. Take it up with the British! Take it up with Bernie Sanders.
An awful lot of people who don't share the Israeli perspective about this that SHOULD cause any reasonable person to think twice about the right and wrong of these acts of violence.
I assume you feel the same way about the 9/11 terrorists? They were also "resisting"... in that case it was the US aggression against Muslims. As you've never walked in their shoes I assume you would also not dare question their resistance or how they resist. Right?
Reminds me of a joke I heard the other day... A Pakistani is asked "how do you feel about 9/11?". He answers "It was a tragedy of course. We lost 19 of our best men".
That joke is from the movie I recommended earlier, "the Big Sick." Quite funny when actually seen in the context of how and why the Pakistani is asked that silly question about his view on 9/11.
All should see the movie (based on a true story) for a number of reasons including the fact the movie is another great portrayal of how little people (Americans) understand about others, foreigners, people who are different from them.
I'm angry you won't give me your house and your bank accounts. Does that mean I can come toss bombs at you and your family or send my bomb wrapped kid to visit your home?
At a basic level that is what you're okay with and rationalizing.
And yes, many of those parents are just fine if not proud their kids are blowing themselves up for "the cause"...
No. Whatever sort of logic this is, to derive this ridiculous conclusion from desert's comment(s), well it's bad logic, really bad, horrible and wrong!
Not altogether atypical of how many a comment is twisted all to Hell in this thread however...
I don't really think it is up to some poster on CD to decide what is in the best interests of the US with regards to our embassy location, or how our ambassadors are to conduct their business with Israel.
Really?!? Now this truly IS something to think twice about!
I thought we CD posters were more important than that!
In 1948, the UN partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. East Jerusalem was clearly to be part of the Arab state. It remained that way until 1967. In the 1967 war, Israeli troops took Jerusalem.
What has always been missing is international acceptance of what happened in this war. The international community intended that negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries would ultimately result in the two states envisioned by the 1948 UN action.
People can claim all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel all they want too. It doesn't make it so. There is a reason why every nation, but the United States supported a resolution in the UN this week opposing the actions of US in moving its embassy to Jerusalem. The other countries of the world don't agree that the boundaries of Israel include all of Jerusalem.
The way Trump is these days, the US will have no other friend in this world, but Israel. And, probably not that country, when the conservative Likud government finally loses power.
In this forum, people WILL claim all they want and believe that's all it takes to make it so...
However, my compliments for being another who seems to know better!
Nearly 1500 posts later, the Arabs violated the Mandate set up per the UN. The Arabs evicted all the Jews and did not give access for Jews to enter Jerusalem. Even with resolution 181, when it came to Jews it wasn't enforced after the Armistice of 1949. Year after year the UN did nothing positive in relation to the Jews to have access to the Old City of Jerusalem. The Mixed Armistice Commission set up by the UN was good for the Arabs but not the Jews. Israel knew at that point the stance of the UN.
Would you say that recognition is something like the Palestinian Arabs knowing the stance of the British when they read the Balfour Declaration? Also curious (though again from Wikipedia) would you describe any of the following as not true?
The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.
Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine. By late 1917, in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate, with two of Britain's Allies and Associated Powers not fully engaged: the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were distracted by internal upheaval. A stalemate in southern Palestine was broken by the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917.
The first high level negotiation between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour's request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine. The release of the final declaration was authorised by 31 October; the preceding Cabinet discussion had referenced perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.
The opening words of the declaration represented the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power. The term "national home" had no precedent in international law, and was intentionally vague as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated. The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism against Jews worldwide. The declaration called for safeguarding the civil and religious rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population, and also the rights of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine. The British government acknowledged in 1939 that the local population's views should have been taken into account, and recognised in 2017 that the declaration should have called for protection of the Palestinian Arabs' political rights.
The declaration had many long-lasting consequences. It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, and led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. As a result it is considered to have caused the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, often described as the world's most intractable conflict. Controversy remains over a number of areas, such as whether the declaration contradicted earlier promises the British made to the Sharif of Mecca in the McMahon–Hussein correspondence.
This is what matters: this pisses off mideast oil countries. China has been working on replacing US dollar as oil trade currency, this helps their cause. After oil contract, USD and its global financial dominance will end just like British pound sterling was replaced.
If you have realized the folly of creating analogies to try and justify your weak position on this, then try simply dealing with the facts, and show the attacks of Jews upon Arabs as has been requested numerous times. Or not, and let everyone see that you have nothing of substance to offer.
Just for the record, my first use of the analogy was presented by way of question, this one, "Or should we not, for example, judge a woman who shoots her husband because he abused her?!?
Understand the analogy/question, and I don't think it takes TOO much head-scratching to understand the meaning, that in order to judge, we must consider the chain of events that lead to the violence and judge accordingly.
Perhaps that meaning was lost on you before you took that same analogy and twisted into another pretzel, and maybe that's why you want to insist it failed me along with all the other irrational insults you love to hurl, but simply spewing whatever comes to your mind, again, does not make it so.
Before you might rear up again with more of the same crap, first tell me..., can you really not accept or understand my simple analogy without repeating yourself ad nauseam with that dead horse you keep beating?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
