I can't guess what the USA wants other than a distraction from the raping-of- children saga, but I bet Israel would settle for "we acknowledge your right to exist and won't fund or encourage organisations that plan to harm you."
Who in your opinion sets the moral framework for defending oneself against an enemy which has sworn genocide and proven capable of destroying entire peaceful villages along their borders?
Let's re-frame this: what behaviour do you think is beyond the pale for any military?
Then, in you heart of hearts, if Israel's IDF ever did that, would you condemn them and demand sanctions, arrest, and imprisonment?
If not, then this is a non-falsifiable situation: you are for Israel not matter what, because it's your parent's tribe.
So when you are making the list of no-nos above, note that the IDF is already past starving child civilians of food aid and bombing entire residential buildings in Iran.
So I'm not sure that behaviour you could find that's beyond the pale.
The rest of us have lines we will not cross, regardless of what our enemies do to us; it's the slow march of civilisation.
The IDF did not starve civilians - that lie has already been disproven. I know that you'd love to repeat it until history records it, but by no objective measure was there famine nor starvation in Gaza. Other than the starvation of Hamas' hostages.
The images of "starving children" were images of children with other medical conditions. The UN reports used a metric that considered starvation at HALF the threshold used in every other conflict zone, and even with that metric only found "evidence" in a single location once.
I accept the bombing of buildings which house those who have declared "Death to America, Death to Israel", and then have proceeded to bomb apartment buildings in Beit Shemesh.
@dang: you've banned members from this forum before for messy threads merely discussing apartheid. Surely advocating for war crimes — that the US itself considers crimes — is beyond the pale?
Why should Israel have a right to exist? And under what parameters? Within which borders? Who gets citizenship?
Surely there's no moral case to be made for Israel having a right to exist in its current religious ethnostate form? People who presumably should have citizenship due to their ties to the land area are excluded because they believe in the wrong ancient delusions.
There are at least three basic answers to that question, depending upon one's worldview.
1. Israel does not have a right to exist, in fact no state has "a right to exist".
2. Israel has a right to exist because her citizens successfully defend her from those who wish her not to exist.
3. Israel has a right to exist because the UN declared it.
>>> random.randrange(1,4)
3
That's the tough one, but I'll answer under that worldview for the remainder of the reply...
> And under what parameters?
Under the parameters established by her founders, and the UN, and those established by her neighbouring states.
From the Israeli declaration of independence:
"WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness"
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(Israel)
From the neighbouring states:
"No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit
Need I remind you that seven nations attacked Israel on the day of her independence? That attack caused a million and a half people to become refugees - both Arabs in the holy land and Jews in the rest of the middle east. It also moved the lines of control from the UN partition plan lines to the 1948 cease fire lines - which far favoured the Jewish state and extended in some places to the internationally recognised borders of Mandatory Palestine.
> Within which borders?
Within the borders of the predecessor state, Mandatory Palestine, just like all other newly-established states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris). Had the Arabs founded an Arab state on the remaining lands of Mandatory Palestine then I would argue that Israel should be established only on the land allocated by the UN and the land lost by the Arabs in their failed war. But the Arabs never established a state there.
> Who gets citizenship?
The people who live within the borders of the new state, and those whom the state determines are eligible for immigration. Just like every other state.
In other words, there is no reason to treat Israel any differently than any other state on the planet.
Note that in 36 odd states in the USA companies and their officers (i.e real people) cannot boycott Israel (or even say nasty things) and then do business with the state.
But if you say the American government is occupied by zionists loyal to a foreign government, that's "hate speech" and would land you in prison if not for the enduring strength of the first ammendment (which several Europeans ITT think is bad, because they think "hate speech" is bad and they lack the mental fortitude to admit that sometimes right wing meanies might actually have a valid point.)
That is simplifying it to the point of a lab experiment. It’s a bit more complicated but yes, you can split light and route that light anywhere you want.
I used to have a 308. You don't notice the dash design much while being distracted by the noise it makes, heavy steering and awkward gear change. Nice body styling though.
Demand for all those services (with possible exception of essential medical care) will shrink if big portion of white collar workers end up unemployed. Without a job people simply won't have much extra money to spend on them.
It's much cheaper to drink at home when you're unemployed though. I live in a country with seriously rising unemployment rate (highest in EU), and bars/night clubs are going bankrupt left and right here.
If Saudi Arabia can get there…
reply