4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Every sovereign nation has the right to determine their capital, but only on land they have a right to. Israel has no right to Jerusalem as it was to be an international zone in the 1948 allocation of Arab land to the israelis. No UN resolution has been passed since giving it to israel. Israelis only have it by force of arms.

 

I thought you would have known that as you profess to know about modern israel.

That is so incredibly STUPID!

The Arab world immediately attacked Israel after the partition. 

Israel won.

Thus the original partition borders are NULL and VOID.

I get it. You hate Israel and God knows what else.

But you apply a different standard to the world's one tiny Jewish state to every other sovereign nation in the world.

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed they have. They have been using the conflict in Gaza to divert attention while they steal as much land as they can in the West Bank.

Israel demonization marches on. 

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

As expected after cutting through all the noise, aid to Israel and further suspension of funding to UNRWA

 

Biden signs spending bill which halts UNRWA funding through 2025

The bill also forces the UN and other international organizations funded to assess and report on efforts to combat anti-Israel bias and antisemitism and to vet staff for connections to terrorists, the US Congress early on Saturday overwhelmingly passed a $1.2 trillion budget bill, which included a ban on US funding for UNRWA until 2025.

The bill also eliminates funding for the UN Commission of Inquiry against Israel and fully funds the annual US security commitment of $3.3 billion for Israel, which allocates funding for the Iron Dome and other defensive systems. 

"The historic ban on US funding to @UNRWA that passed today with an overwhelming bipartisan support, demonstrates what we knew all along: UNRWA is part of the problem and can not be part of the solution. UNRWA will not be a part of Gaza's landscape in the aftermath of Hamas," Israel's Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in a post on X. 

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-793359

 

 

Good. No U.S. tax money to teach Arab kids how to kill Jews.

3 hours ago, Neeranam said:

If Hamas are wiped out, along with their mothers wives and children, Israel lose. 

If Hamas survive, Israel lose. 

They brought it onto themselves with their greed for more land. 

The world now knows about Israel, sadly through the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, mostly women and kids. 

The USA have been here before with their shenanigans in Iraq. Dangerous for any Yank or Israeli to wear their country's flag on their rucksack. 

Those greedy Jews!

Any relation to inscrutable Orientals?

The Israel Palestinian conflict is a specific thing and has zilch to do with Iraq.

But yeah there is hostility towards Americans. I'll never forget being spat on by a clerk in Malaysia even though I tried to tell her I opposed Bush.

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO BS. Far as I know, everything that Palestinians in Gaza needed to survive came from UNRWA and overseas countries and charities.

They got electricity and water from the israelis, and far as I know that was it.

 

Under international law I understand it is the responsibility of an occupying power to look after the occupied, but IMO, as with everything to do with Palestinians, israelis don't abide by international law.

BTW, it's a war crime to deny food water and medical help to a civilian population, but israelis are well known as not giving a fig for international law, unless it helps them.

Gaza wasn't occupied.

As far as Israel acting in their national self interest, ALL nations do that, but for some reason you're obsessed with attacking the world's one tiny Jewish state for being normal. 

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Israel demonization marches on. 

 

Well said! I hope this marks a change in rhetoric away from conflation of criticism of nation states with religion. Maybe we can have some discussions on their merits going forward. I'm not trolling, I've been really hoping for this for some time now.

 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Well said! I hope this marks a change in rhetoric away from conflation of criticism of nation states with religion. Maybe we can have some discussions on their merits going forward. I'm not trolling, I've been really hoping for this for some time now.

 

Not half as clever as you think.

Off topic posts and replies removed, the topic is about Israel at war it is not about Malaysia or homosexuality, keep this up and you will be removed  from the topic

Another UN Security Council vote on Monday, this time the US will probably veto it. Russia and China appear to be backing it.

 

UNSC vote set for Monday on new Gaza ceasefire resolution; US unlikely to back it

The brief resolution scheduled for a vote Monday demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire for Ramadan “leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire.” It also demands “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages” and emphasizes the urgent need to protect civilians and deliver humanitarian aid throughout the Gaza Strip.

The draft does not include provisions supporting ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire — an element that was highlighted in the US resolution.

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the council after Friday’s vote that the new resolution’s text “fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse, it could actually give Hamas an excuse to walk away from the deal on the table.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/unsc-vote-set-for-this-week-on-new-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-us-unlikely-to-back-it/

 

 

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Another UN Security Council vote on Monday, this time the US will probably veto it. Russia and China appear to be backing it.

 

UNSC vote set for Monday on new Gaza ceasefire resolution; US unlikely to back it

The brief resolution scheduled for a vote Monday demands an immediate humanitarian ceasefire for Ramadan “leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire.” It also demands “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages” and emphasizes the urgent need to protect civilians and deliver humanitarian aid throughout the Gaza Strip.

The draft does not include provisions supporting ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire — an element that was highlighted in the US resolution.

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the council after Friday’s vote that the new resolution’s text “fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse, it could actually give Hamas an excuse to walk away from the deal on the table.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/unsc-vote-set-for-this-week-on-new-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-us-unlikely-to-back-it/

 

 

 

US foreign policy is not the automatic gainsay of what Russia and China say and do. The US wants a permanent ceasefire and negotiations toward a 2 state solution. If the proposed resolution contains that language then there's no reason to think the US will veto it. The days of the US vetoing anything that Israel sees as against its national interests are over. Note that the US resolution itself did not call for the immediate release of the hostages as a precondition for negotiations. While Israel refuses to release Hamas prisoners, especially those not charged with a crime, the US would not be able to insist that Hamas should do so.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

US foreign policy is not the automatic gainsay of what Russia and China say and do. The US wants a permanent ceasefire and negotiations toward a 2 state solution. If the proposed resolution contains that language then there's no reason to think the US will veto it. The days of the US vetoing anything that Israel sees as against its national interests are over. Note that the US resolution itself did not call for the immediate release of the hostages as a precondition for negotiations. While Israel refuses to release Hamas prisoners, especially those not charged with a crime, the US would not be able to insist that Hamas should do so.

 If the proposed resolution contains that language then there's no reason to think the US will veto it

 

Did you read the link or even the title?

 

"US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the council after Friday’s vote that the new resolution’s text “fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse, it could actually give Hamas an excuse to walk away from the deal on the table.”

“We should not move forward with any resolution that jeopardizes the ongoing negotiations” being carried out by the United States, Qatar and Egypt, she said, warning that if the diplomacy isn’t supported “we may once again find this council deadlocked.”

“I truly hope that that does not come about,” Thomas-Greenfield said.

The United States has vetoed three resolutions demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, the most recent an Arab-backed measure. That measure was supported by 13 members with one abstention in a February 20 vote."

 

Still waiting for a specific link to your claim that Israel levelled 85% of Gaza..................

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 If the proposed resolution contains that language then there's no reason to think the US will veto it

 

Did you read the link or even the title?

 

"US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the council after Friday’s vote that the new resolution’s text “fails to support sensitive diplomacy in the region. Worse, it could actually give Hamas an excuse to walk away from the deal on the table.”

“We should not move forward with any resolution that jeopardizes the ongoing negotiations” being carried out by the United States, Qatar and Egypt, she said, warning that if the diplomacy isn’t supported “we may once again find this council deadlocked.”

“I truly hope that that does not come about,” Thomas-Greenfield said.

The United States has vetoed three resolutions demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, the most recent an Arab-backed measure. That measure was supported by 13 members with one abstention in a February 20 vote."

 

Still waiting for a specific link to your claim that Israel levelled 85% of Gaza..................

 

I read all of it. A US veto is not a foregone conclusion. You might consider whether the ambassador's statement isn't pressure to include language to support negotiations.

 

I already gave you a link that Israel has destroyed 85% of Gazan civilian infrastructure. I'm still waiting for you to answer any single question regarding your position on the issues of Palestinian statehood.

 

 

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

I read all of it. A US veto is not a foregone conclusion.

 

I already gave you a link that Israel has destroyed 85% of Gazan civilian infrastructure. I'm still waiting for you to answer any single question regarding your position on the issues of Palestinian statehood.

I read all of it. A US veto is not a foregone conclusion.

 

Waking up tomorrow is not a forgone conclusion either............

 

No you did give a link to that claim that is a clear lie, I even added the link to the post where I asked you for it. No further debates with a dishonest member. Here is the link again.

 

Numerous times I stated that Palestine deserves its own statehood as does Israel now get that link or forget any further responses from me.

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I read all of it. A US veto is not a foregone conclusion.

 

Waking up tomorrow is not a forgone conclusion either............

 

No you did give a link to that claim that is a clear lie, I even added the link to the post where I asked you for it. No further debates with a dishonest member. Here is the link again.

 

Numerous times I stated that Palestine deserves its own statehood as does Israel now get that link or forget any further responses from me.

 

Without the West Bank settlements which are accelerating?

 

OK, I'll modify my claim to greater than 70% (and 85% of health infrastructure) and blame my imperfect memory or inability to find another link. It doesn't alter my point does it? Bear in mind that the figure includes Rafah which is still intact so that means a far greater percentage of northern Gaza infrastructure - that part which has been bombed - has been destroyed.

 

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-bombardment-destroys-more-than-70-of-civilian-infrastructure-in-gaza-un-agency/3138876

 

almost 80 percent of buildings may be damaged or destroyed.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-devastation-of-gaza-was-inevitable-a-comparison-to-us-operations-in-iraq-and-syria/

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Without the West Bank settlements which are accelerating?

 

OK, I'll modify my claim to greater than 70% (and 85% of health infrastructure) and blame my imperfect memory or inability to find another link. It doesn't alter my point does it?

 

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-bombardment-destroys-more-than-70-of-civilian-infrastructure-in-gaza-un-agency/3138876

Modify your claim........lol Your link points to a claim of 70% of civilian buildings, your original claim was 85% of the whole of Gaza leveled. That is not modification that is a weak attempt at covering up a lie.

 

The actual figure is 35% remember that for the future

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I read all of it. A US veto is not a foregone conclusion.

 

Waking up tomorrow is not a forgone conclusion either............

 

No you did give a link to that claim that is a clear lie, I even added the link to the post where I asked you for it. No further debates with a dishonest member. Here is the link again.

 

Numerous times I stated that Palestine deserves its own statehood as does Israel now get that link or forget any further responses from me.

"Numerous times I stated that Palestine deserves its own statehood as does Israel..." I don't recall you doing that, but I'll take your word for it. If you have, you don't state that the Palestine state needs to be part of the land now in question, and you don't explain how that land might be divided into a two-state solution. 

I've suggested starting any negotiations on a two-state solution with the division of land as is in the UN's 1947/48 map and then going from there.

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Modify your claim........lol Your link points to a claim of 70% of civilian buildings, your original claim was 85% of the whole of Gaza leveled. That is not modification that is a weak attempt at covering up a lie.

 

The actual figure is 35% remember that for the future

If the IDF does not stop soon, it will be 70%.

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Modify your claim........lol Your link points to a claim of 70% of civilian buildings, your original claim was 85% of the whole of Gaza leveled. That is not modification that is a weak attempt at covering up a lie.

 

The actual figure is 35% remember that for the future

 

5 to 10% is not a material number and does not alter my point.

 

Bear in mind that the figure includes Rafah which is still intact so that means a far greater percentage of northern Gaza infrastructure - that part which has been bombed - has been destroyed.

 

6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Modify your claim........lol Your link points to a claim of 70% of civilian buildings, your original claim was 85% of the whole of Gaza leveled. That is not modification that is a weak attempt at covering up a lie.

 

The actual figure is 35% remember that for the future

 

I provided independent links that said 70 to 80% and even higher for medical infrastructure. Your links don't trump mine.

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

5 to 10% is not a material number and does not alter my point.

 

Bear in mind that the figure includes Rafah which is still intact so that means a far greater percentage of northern Gaza infrastructure - that part which has been bombed - has been destroyed.

 

Poor deflection, your unattributed claim that 85% of Gaza was leveled to the reality that I provided which is 35%

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Poor deflection, your unattributed claim that 85% of Gaza was leveled to the reality that I provided which is 35%

 

Your cherry picked link does not overwhelm several links which state 70%. If Israel invade Rafah that figure will inevitably skyrocket. You obsession with the actual numbers belays the point.

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

If the IDF does not stop soon, it will be 70%.

Try offering something top the topic

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Your cherry picked link does not overwhelm several links which state 70%. If Israel invade Rafah that figure will inevitably skyrocket.

Cherry picked? its the latest analysis by UN satellite..lol

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Cherry picked? its the latest analysis by UN satellite..lol

 

Did you not notice you linked to a paywalled site which is not allowed under the rules? Got another link?

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Did you not notice you linked to a paywalled site which is not allowed under the rules? Got another link?

Some Reuters link paywall free

 

Satellite images show 35% of Gaza's building destroyed, UN says

https://archive.ph/Tz81E

 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Some Reuters link paywall free

 

Satellite images show 35% of Gaza's building destroyed, UN says

https://archive.ph/Tz81E

 

 

Not the one you linked. Regardless, you are not permitted to link to Reuters at all so consider removing this one as well. Linking to the same article via archives on a different site is devious.

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Not the one you linked.

Of course it is, whats wrong with you

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/satellite-images-show-35-gazas-building-destroyed-un-says-2024-03-21/

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course it is, whats wrong with you

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/satellite-images-show-35-gazas-building-destroyed-un-says-2024-03-21/

 

Remove it. I'm not going to register with Reuters only to then be told I have reached my free article limit.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Not the one you linked. Regardless, you are not permitted to link to Reuters at all so consider removing this one as well.

Not permitted to link Reuters? Where can you see a list of all these rules? 

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Remove it. I'm not going to register with Reuters only to then be told I have reached my free article limit.

Get a grip man and stop telling me what to do, I've already provided the same reuters link with no paywall https://archive.ph/Tz81E