Why all Israelis are cowards

[A.P. Richelieu]

Despite your reluctance to accept the facts, the Balfour Declaration is generally regarded as the official acknowledgement by Britain to create a Jewish State in Palestine. When the colonial ruler makes something an official policy, it is as good as done. And that happened at a time when the Jewish population of Palestine was around 3-5%.

The veto power is a bargaining chip among the UNSC members: you scratch my back here, and I will return the favor there.

The initial Balfour Declaration was a British construct, but the US, under intense lobbying by American Zionists like Justice Louis Brandeis, became the overriding force supporting Israel in the later decades.

I do not see a lot of scratching in the Security Council. right now Soviet is vetoing anything regarding Syria/Ukraine.
Before Soviet vetoed anything regarding Iraq, because it is against their interests.
US is vetoing most things relating to Israel.

US only started to support Israel after the six-day war, which is like 20 years after the creation
and long after the Balfour Declaration.
1956 US actively intervened to stop the Suez crisis, threatening the U.K. with bankrupcy.
Arab contacts with the Soviet Union had a lot to do with US starting supporting Israel.

US didn't disapprove on the creation of Israel, but really had nothing to do with its creation.
U.K.s part of the resolution had nothing to do with brute force.
The resolution was voted through, because the current members thought it made sense.

 

[SAMEET]

Rather than debating interpretations, let's look at empirical facts of what Britain actually did towards creation of Israel.

FACT: In 1917, with 3-5% of the population Jewish, Britain made it an official policy to create a Jewish State in Palestine.
FACT: Over the next few decades, (and even in the late 1800s), Britain, as the colonial ruler of Palestine, facilitated large scale migration of Jews into Palestine.
FACT: Britain supported creation of Israel at the UN.



Again, let's look at empirical facts.

All the British colonial possessions were turned over to people living on the land, in line with Wilsonian principles.

The only exception? Israel.

even sindh and punjab was hindu majority country until islamic conquering right ? and isreal and whole hly land of lebanon, israel ( PALESTINE ) was ruled by byzantine who persecuted jews thats why jews are aroud europe and north africa , mesopotamia , iran , saudi ! your religion is a prduct of old testament ( torah ) right even the concept of zion land by majority yehudi people was not good but the fight is turning worst point ! that too all in name of religion ! even your country is formed in the name of relgion my friend!

 

[Developereo]

I do not see a lot of scratching in the Security Council. right now Soviet is vetoing anything regarding Syria/Ukraine.
Before Soviet vetoed anything regarding Iraq, because it is against their interests.
US is vetoing most things relating to Israel.

US only started to support Israel after the six-day war, which is like 20 yearsafter the creation.
1956 US actively intervened to stop the Suez crisis, threatening the U.K. with bankrupcy.
Arab contacts with the Soviet Union had a lot to do with this.

US didn't disapprove on the creation of Israel, but really had nothing to do with its creation.
U.K.s part of the resolution had nothing to do with brute force.
The resolution was voted through, because the current members thought it made sense.

The UNSC backscratching I am talking about only occurs when there is a quid pro quo. For example, China may support Russia on one issue if Russia returns the favor on some other issue. Similarly, US and France, or Russia and France may exchange such favors.

Bottom line is that the UNSC is an exclusive club of countries with the military and economic muscle. The rest of the UN is just for show.

As for US support of Israel, it goes way back to early 20th century. I am not talking about financial or military support -- which came much later as you pointed out -- but diplomatic support, and support for creation of Israel in the first place.

even sindh and punjab was hindu majority country until islamic conquering right ? and isreal and whole hly land of lebanon, israel ( PALESTINE ) was ruled by byzantine who persecuted jews thats why jews are aroud europe and north africa , mesopotamia , iran , saudi ! your religion is a prduct of old testament ( torah ) right even the concept of zion land by majority yehudi people was not good but the fight is turning worst point ! that too all in name of religion ! even your country is formed in the name of relgion my friend!

You are mixing up two concepts: people and religion.

The people may convert to any religion, but the people of Pakistan remain the same.

Compare this to Israel, where the people were shipped in from elsewhere, and the people living there were thrown out.

As for your point that Jews were thrown out by the Romans, what's so special about that?

Every piece of land on earth, including Palestine, has been conquered by some group of people who displaced earlier groups of people. The Jews themselves conquered and displaced the Canaanites. We can take this logic all the way back to prehistoric times and find out that every group of humans are conquerors. So why give special treatment to the ancient Hebrews for their conquest of this land 3000 years ago?

 

[SAMEET]

The UNSC backscratching I am talking about only occurs when there is a quid pro quo. For example, China may support Russia on one issue if Russia returns the favor on some other issue. Similarly, US and France, or Russia and France may exchange such favors.

Bottom line is that the UNSC is an exclusive club of countries with the military and economic muscle. The rest of the UN is just for show.

As for US support of Israel, it goes way back to early 20th century. I am not talking about financial or military support -- which came much later as you pointed out -- but diplomatic support, and support for creation of Israel in the first place.



You are mixing up two concepts: people and religion.

The people may convert to any religion, but the people of Pakistan remain the same.

Compare this to Israel, where the people were shipped in from elsewhere, and the people living there were thrown out.

by your logic! even your religion is a prduct of invasion like the yehudi from europe ! simply say me why yehudi came only to dessert into most hostile place to fight war with arabs whats logic in it ? they have some belonging to land rember you are following there religion and even christians ! the religion of book !

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The UNSC backscratching I am talking about only occurs when there is a quid pro quo. For example, China may support Russia on one issue if Russia returns the favor on some other issue. Similarly, US and France, or Russia and France may exchange such favors.

Bottom line is that the UNSC is an exclusive club of countries with the military and economic muscle. The rest of the UN is just for show.

As for US support of Israel, it goes way back to early 20th century. I am not talking about financial or military support -- which came much later as you pointed out -- but diplomatic support, and support for creation of Israel in the first place.



You are mixing up two concepts: people and religion.

The people may convert to any religion, but the people of Pakistan remain the same.

Compare this to Israel, where the people were shipped in from elsewhere, and the people living there were thrown out.

As for your point that Jews were thrown out by the Romans, what's so special about that?

Every piece of land on earth, including Palestine, has been conquered by some group of people who displaced earlier groups of people. The Jews themselves conquered and displaced the Canaanites. We can take this logic all the way back to prehistoric times and find out that every group of humans are conquerors. So why give special treatment to the ancient Hebrews for their conquest of this land 3000 years ago?

The UNSC has permanent members and other members which are elected.
In order for a resolution to happen, a majority has to vote for the resolution.
Any country can be a member, so it is not that exclusive.
A US vote is no more worth than a vote from Bangladesh.
Of course there may be discussion and deals, but not regarding vetoes.
Explain why Russia would try to bargain, to make someone else veto, when they just could veto themselves?

The resolution regarding split the Mandate in two states was therefore NOT something
achieved through superior firepower.

Your earlier statement is wrong, and you show that you do not understand the UN Security Council:

My comment on Israel was in reference to the discussion around the UN, and my argument is that Israel's legitimacy in the UN is purely by force of colonial firepower. That is where the colonial era comes in because, before that time, no one disputed the might is right principle.[/quote

 

[Developereo]

The UNSC has permanent members and other members which are elected.
In order for a resolution to happen, a majority has to vote for the resolution.
Any country can be a member, so it is not that exclusive.
A US vote is no more worth than a vote from Bangladesh.
Of course there may be discussion and deals, but not regarding vetoes.
Explain why Russia would try to bargain, to make someone else veto, when they just could veto themselves?

The resolution regarding split the Mandate in two states was therefore NOT something
achieved through superior firepower.

Your earlier statement is wrong, and you show that you do not understand the UN Security Council:

Do you understand what the concept of a VETO means? Why only a select few countries hold that power? Any why they are reluctant to extend that power to other countries?

Any resolution passed by the wider UN is worthless if it can't be enforced on a veto-holding country.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Do you understand what the concept of a VETO means? Why only a select few countries hold that power? Any why they are reluctant to extend that power to other countries?

Any resolution passed by the wider UN is worthless if it can't be enforced on a veto-holding country.

You seem to not understand the difference between a vote in the Security Council and a vote in the General Assembly.

 

[Sholef]

All I see is Israel prospering and the Arabs falling apart.

If that's cowardly, then we're all cowards in Israel.

Of course the wars in which we spanked your behinds might prove otherwise.

We in Israel are like Lions who often have these pests try and poke us with sticks. Usually we just swat them away with our paw.

One day soon, we're going to bite and bite down hard.

The firepower we have now is astounding and is only increasing year on year.

 

[500]

FACT: In 1917, with 3-5% of the population Jewish, Britain made it an official policy to create a Jewish State in Palestine.

No thats not fact.

FACT: Over the next few decades, (and even in the late 1800s), Britain, as the colonial ruler of Palestine, facilitated large scale migration of Jews into Palestine.

Well and u migrate to Australia, which is a land of genocided people.

FACT: Britain supported creation of Israel at the UN.

Again wrong

 

[Developereo]

You seem to not understand the difference between a vote in the Security Council and a vote in the General Assembly.

I understand perfectly well.

What you are missing is that the only vote that has any teeth is the UNSC vote. A GA "vote" can be ignored by any country with the military muscle to say "I don't give a damn".

 

[SAMEET]

All I see is Israel prospering and the Arabs falling apart.

If that's cowardly, then we're all cowards in Israel.

Of course the wars in which we spanked your behinds might prove otherwise.

We in Israel are like Lions who often have these pests try and poke us with sticks. Usually we just swat them away with our paw.

One day soon, we're going to bite and bite down hard.

The firepower we have now is astounding and is only increasing year on year.

six day war ! wtf is this ? no wonder you are coward !

 

[Developereo]

No thats not fact.

I don't remember the exact figure but it's in the low single digits. This is the universally accepted figure, even by Israeli historians.

Well and u migrate to Australia, which is a land of genocided people.

The comparison would be fair If I decide to claim Australia as a Muslim country and kick out all the other religions. (or only allow them to exist if they accept the "Muslim nature" of Australia).

 

[500]

I don't remember the exact figure but it's in the low single digits. This is the universally accepted figure, even by Israeli historians.

Brits did not make any Jewish state policy in 1917, nor even anytime later.

The comparison would be fair If I decide to claim Australia as a Muslim country and kick out all the other religions. (or only allow them to exist if they accept the "Muslim nature" of Australia).

You live on land of people which was genocided already.

On the other hand Jews did not make any genocide, but on contrary. The number of Arabs in Palestine has increased over 14 times since the start of Zionism.

 

[MastanKhan]

I know that I said their army is only good at killing civilians I would like to see them fight against advanced army or they throw their weapons away and fight face to face without Air Force or their tanks and fleet then we will know how much brave and powerful they are

Sir,

It is stupid to underestimate the bravery of your enemy. The israelis have proved many a times that they are extremely capable fighters----. I write again---jews in the u s were the code enforcers for the mafia---killers---hitmen---etc etc etc.

Secondly---you fight with the weapons that you have---.

 

[Developereo]

Brits did not make any Jewish state policy in 1917, nor even anytime later.

Again, you are free to interpret documents in your own way, but it won't change the reality. The Balfour Declaration was an official British document establishing Britain's support for a Jewish state in Palestine. Britain's subsequent actions are in line with this stated goal, including large scale migration of Jews into Palestine. Of course, the Zionists were not happy with the pace of migration, but that's to be expected.

You live on land of people which was genocided already.

And I already admitted that almost all countries are built by force. If the Israelis admit that it's a battle of military force, not some metaphysical "legitimacy", then we agree. As I said, the UN is just a cover for gunboat diplomacy by the permanent UNSC members.

On the other hand Jews did not make any genocide, but on contrary. The number of Arabs in Palestine has increased over 14 times since the start of Zionism.

The actual number is Irrelevant. They were almost 100% of the population and are now a small minority, and that happened because of their religion and ethnicity.