> Israel was literally born out of political scheming
Its more of a popular jewish movement that over 100 years changed the ethnic composition of the Palestine region from 1-2% in the 1840s up to 30% in the 1940s.
Political scheming is secondary and was born well after the 1840s.
> changed the ethnic composition of the Palestine region from 1-2% in the 1840s up to 30% in the 1940s.
That was the Ottomans who made that change. After losing a war to Prussia, to collect more taxes in 1856 they openly encouraged migration of all peoples - Jews, Christians, Muslims alike - to the Levant area. By the 1870s Jerusalem was Jewish majority, half a century before the British Mandate era began and even before the First Aliyah.
I was referring to the well documented deals and shenanigans that were instrumental first to get the promise of support for an Israeli homeland, and then in the UN to get the partition plan approved.
Zionism itself is a product of 19th century nationalisms and of course of a (widespread at the time) colonial mindset.
Do you really expect you can defend Israel with this kind of lawyering and be taken seriously? "Well akshually a ceasefire line...". For god's sake. Let's not even get into who has violated the supposed ceasefire first, or on the legality of settling your population outside of its line, violated or not (spoiler: illegal in any case). Settlements have been declared illegal many times during the decades, most recently this year by the ICJ, and Israel has known this perfectly well since the start.
Legality ends up following the de-facto reality.
What's the future of the legality of Golan annexion ? With the new Syria, its soon going to become legal.
Jewish people coming back to live on its ancient homeland has no legal basis; It's their collective will which allowed its coming into existence (continuous immigration from other countries since the 1840s).
The legality of its existence wouldn't help it survive even one second.
> Legality ends up following the de-facto reality.
Then what was the purpose of your previous objection about ceasefire lines? None. You just threw it there hoping to derail the argument with a pointless distraction, and now that it didn't work you are saying legality doesn't matter. This fundamental, shameless dishonesty is common to most defenders of Israel and frankly unsufferable.
I was asking why the post-1948 ceasefire lines are more legal than the post-1967 lines ?
If you decide to go after the 1947 UN partition, keep the 1947 lines as the only legal border.
If the 1948 war can redefine what's legal, then the 1967 war can do it as well.
I personally think the borders should be decided between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
The only agreement to date between them has been the 1991 Oslo accords, with A, B and C zones.
Further talks about definitive borders stopped with the Second Intifada in 2000.
Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to their indigenous homeland. Your Western leftist ideology have twisted the definition to your own agenda.
The Wikipedia article doesn't really support your view that they emigrate to Israel:
>In 2007, the year Hamas took over Gaza, the Gazan Christian population was at 3,000.[5][33] Israel's subsequent blockade of the territory accelerated the emigration of Christians, with many going to the West Bank, the United States, Canada, or elsewhere in the Arab world.[5]
I think they don't. I think it's as states, that they either emigrate to the West Bank or go far abroad.'
There are extreme efforts in Israel to push Christians out of certain neighbourhoods, for example, in Jerusalem, where people have been going after the Armenians.
Israel: Surrender or we'll destroy your city
Hamas: Only if you let us rebuild and prepare the next war
Israel: Starts destroying the city by bombing emptied buildings, these having received warning from Israel beforehand
UN: Oh look, a genocide
You're right; I meant to refute the following point:
NASA nixed the idea of propulsive landing for Dragon 2 for this reason (safety)
It wasn't because of safety, but because it would have needed tests, development and certification (for a new type of landing) while already having an established method (splashing into the sea).
Having to drive in bumper to bumper traffic versus chilling in a large chair either working on a laptop, watching a movie or just sleeping (or well if you can't afford it in which case this is very irreverent due to ticket prices).
You have no reliable way to project the cost of supersonic flight 50 years in the future. It will come down. That's all I'm certain of.
I'm sure people told the Wright brothers similar things. You're simply being extremely short-sighted. Which is very ironic since you're also talking about climate change concerns around this post.
There are known, demonstrated ways to reduce rush hour traffic that decrease energy and emissions per person.
Supersonic flight will likely increase emissions per person by a larger proportion than the time saved per person. It's a brute-force energy-wasting solution to the problem.
I’m confused by this question, is 45,000 too little for you? To label genocide you need a large number of of deaths with the intent of destroying a people’s identity.
> What’s the civilian/military ratio ?
If you’re able to find this number, you’re likely able to find that depending on whom you ask the percentage of militants ranges from 10-40%.
And this says nothing about the millions displaced, the destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure and the policies to starve the population. Given the vast amount of attention given to this topic and the information around it, you need to be make a conscious effort to stay ignorant of it. And to be wilfully ignorant of a genocide is to be complicit in it.
Estimates of Hamas membership originating from Israeli state sources should be taken with a grain of salt.
I expect the Israeli regime's blood thirst to be counter-balanced by the desire to free hostages, but apparently not. I don't think bombing hospitals and refugee camps serve any military purpose.
In normal circumstances it doesn't. But Hamas had no shame using non-military sites as cover for military operations. Dead children is the fuel that powered Hamas's international support.
And trust me, these guys just tell themselves those children will be blessed by Allah as martyrs, no biggie.
Its more of a popular jewish movement that over 100 years changed the ethnic composition of the Palestine region from 1-2% in the 1840s up to 30% in the 1940s.
Political scheming is secondary and was born well after the 1840s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti...