The state of Israel

What on earth is your point?
Mine is that criticism of Israel, a country, is not anti-Semitic.

It's not about diplomacy. Have you ever heard about Palestinian state for Palestinian people?

Not entirely sure what you mean in that particular phrasing?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'll find the links Queen but I'm sure they were targeted as they were running from or to a know Launch site for rockets

Now I think we can all agree you don't let children play around military sites unless you want them to be killed (and did you know that allowing children to play around military targets during he time of a conflict is considered a war crime the same as if a person knowing moves towards a gun battle that person loses their protected status according to international law (something we all know the pallys encourage during there fights with Israel)

My point is that you cannot discuss anti-Semitism because you don't know what it is.
My point also is that you are a liar.

Sorry.
I mean that everybody, including Israeli political leaders, are speaking about Palestinian state for Palestinian people. But Muslims are refuse to speak about Jewish state for Jewish people.

I'll find the links Queen but I'm sure they were targeted as they were running from or to a know Launch site for rockets

Call yourself a Corbynite!

Sorry.
I mean that everybody, including Israeli political leaders, are speaking about Palestinian state for Palestinian people. But Muslims are refuse to speak about Jewish state for Jewish people.

Let me help you.
https://www.facebook.com/Lt.Col.PeterLerner/posts/977554298952196:0?_rdr

I'm not so sure, I tend to just hear people talk simply about a Palestinian state. This is a complicated issue, but to try and summarise right now, the proposal for a Palestinian state is to provide then with their currently-denied political rights, rather than because they need a particulae ethnic state simply because they are an ethnic group.

Posted from TSR Mobile

People talk..
Maybe just accidentally somebody talked you about political formula "two states for two peoples"?

He'll soon come to his senses and mend his ways

educate me

do you not think the atomic bombings of japan stops the japanese from continuing to massacre the far east?

No I do not and would never condone the use of such a weapon that caused so much suffering and unnecessary loss of human life. Japan was already a defeated country by then.

If you want to know more about the settlements that Israel keeps expanding on in the West Bank and East Jerusalem then there are several articles about Palestinian homes being bulldozed and Israeli settlements being built on the land. It's one of the primary reasons why there has been friction between the US and Israeli government in the recent years. Check out UN resolution 446.

I'd have rathered japanese citizens died than allied soldiers seeing as the japanese are the ones responsible for the war in the far east, so they are more deserving of death than soldiers of a defending nation. I don't wish death on any innocent people, but if I had to choose between sacrificing more soldiers or foreign citizens of an aggressing nation, the choice of obvious. the japanese were evidently planning a last stand, because they wouldn't accept unconditional surrender (which was demanded), so that would have costed US soldiers' lives. so to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki would have prevented an innocent country's men from dying. it makes total sense to have bombed those nations. the japanese could have saved their citizens but they didn't. so it's entirely their fault that their people died.

so surely you, knowing about this, would be able to give me a sentence or two about that?

The Security Council calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories

This is the exact excuse that terrorists cite for suicide bombings. This was a country that had been greatly weakened and had limited military capabilities, an atom bomb was completely unnecessary and would only be condoned by those who think that all human life is not equally sacred. And it makes perfect sense to blame those who dropped the bomb for the bombing than those who were bombed. Japanese civilians did not choose to be involved in the war.

I already did, but here are a few articles from an exhaustively long list:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/israeli-settlement-west-bank-gvaot-condemned
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/european-members-of-security-council-condemn-israeli-settlements-settler-violence-1.402619
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801


Resolution 446: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BA123CDED3EA84A5852560E50077C2DC

you seem to be agreeing with the napoleonic position of "soldiers are meant to die" - soldiers are citizens/humans too. soldiers shouldn't be viewed as mere tools. yes, they are involved in wars, but they were conscripted in WWII. so it wasn't a matter of choice, in the same sense as citizens in japan got involved. there was no difference at all. but even if we're talking about modern wars, soldiers aren't signing up to die - they're signing up to risk their lives though. but that is not to say they deserve death more than enemy non-combatants - if an enemy nation invades you and the only way to stop more soldiers dying than otherwise is killing non-combatants to make a surrender faster, then killing non-combatants is a necessity. if anybody is going to die, why would you send your own men to death when you could kill other nations' peoples (when they are not represented by an innocent government?). you need to blame the right actor - the invading state. in WWII, japanese forces were slaughtering millions of non-combatants, so they had to be stopped, and the only way to do that, was through their innocent citizens. it was defensive. a nation cannot just expect its people to die endlessly just because the other nations' non-combatants equally didn't deserve death to the degree that they shouldn't die - their own nation will be influenced by these deaths more than foreign deaths.

"you did"? where?
not even one sentence? I don't have time to necessarily go through all those.

So you're really justifying the murder of 200,000 civilians with two bombs? If it was the other way round the use of those bombs would be considered a war crime. I already stated that Japan was weak from having been bombed heavily prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki so had very limited military capabilities. Because of this the use of such a destructive weapon was highly unnecessary and even if the US did have to use it, why choose a civilian concentrated city as opposed to a military base?

To sum it up Israel has been bulldozing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, forcing the inhabitants to become refugees so the displacement continues to this day. Israel has also been building Jews-only settlements on these lands despite worldwide condemnation and the fact that this is contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention. I would consider that to be aggressive action.

let me be more clear - I would rather soldiers died than citizens, as they are the primary defence, but only as a protocol. if you can stop soldiers, whom are also citizens (combatant citizens whom are signed up, except for in the cases of conscription, to take on risks to their life) from dying unnecessarily for the injustices of another state's aggression, then to stop that from having to happen for no good reason, you must put an end to it with whatever means necessary, seeing as injustice has already been staged (you should fight fire with fire). while non-combatants are always innocent, soldiers of an innocent state are also innocent and don't deserve to fight wars that never had to happen in the first place. so if necessary, you ought to defend your own nation state and its people by attacking citizens of the other side to deter the deaths of (although more risk-taking combatants) soldiers. to prefer the citizens of another (aggressing) state, while they are also innocent, is to basically suggest that another nation deserves priority over your own, which is silly. nations must defend themselves. their sole role is to defend their citizens. and soldiers, whether risk takers or not, are not mere tools/objects.