I dare you to claim that this is not a clear example of U.N. bias against Israel. This sort of stuff has been seen time after time after time in events like the Goldstone Report, the Zionism equals Racism vote, and the Durban Conferences. The U.N. needs to seriously reexamine what it stands for, because it has now become a sound-off board for those who wish to condemn Israel at every opportunity.
Discuss whether or not you think that the U.N. is biased against Israel.
The settlers who came in the early 1900s. They didn't exactly rely on the U.S. for a paltry 3 billion in foreign aid.
3.3 billion per year, around 1.2 billion in economic aid and 1.8 billion in military aid although this has fluctuated since 1949, overall the Oct. 27, 2000 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, using available and verifiable numbers, gives cumulative aid to Israel from 1949 through FY 2000 (which ended Sept. 30, 2000) at $81.38 billion. On the other hand, last year the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs estimated total aid to Israel through FY 2000 at $91.82 billion. This does not include the aid given in the next 12 years till today, nor the numerous DOD funds on the grounds that those funds are for joint research and development projects.
The irrationality and childishness stems from your claim of ''If the Pals want it back, Israel will just turn it all back into a swamp'', much like a child destroying a toy when another child wants it, just to prevent it from falling to the other. That's childish.
Using your analogy, it's more like a child destroying a toy which he built from scratch, and when the child who wants it was attempting to beat him up in the process.
I don't know where you get your data, but Israel is constantly amongst the top recipients of US foreign aid, and has been so for decades. Afghanistan might have recently taken the top spot, but factor in the long continuous aid, Israel's share is still enormous and nowhere resembles anything from the Order ***ales. Take your pick.
So we're down to analogies? What the Palestinians want is the land, the right to return to their own rightful homeland from which they were driven out of. If Israel happened to develop the land, it is inconsequential, because the Palestinians want a state, anything else inside is just a bonus.
That still does not alleviate the ridiculous argument of ''If we can't have it, we're going to destroy it'' you have proposed numerous times in the past.
That still does not alleviate the ridiculous argument of ''If we can't have it, we're going to destroy it'' you have proposed numerous times in the past.
Tell me, why shouldn't Israel destroy it? They built it with their own labor, their own money, their own resources. If they are not going to be able to use the fruits of their labors, than why not destroy it?
USA had give Pakistan 33.6069 billion in Economic aid and 8.932 billion in military aid and we have fought two wars for them (and still fighting one of em).
Tell me, why shouldn't Israel destroy it? They built it with their own labor, their own money, their own resources. If they are not going to be able to use the fruits of their labors, than why not destroy it?
Tell me, why shouldn't Israel destroy it? They built it with their own labor, their own money, their own resources. If they are not going to be able to use the fruits of their labors, than why not destroy it?
Because not recognising Israel is not the same as chasing all Israeli citizens out. By destroying what they have built, the government is going to metaphorically shoot their own people in the foot. I have never seen such an asinine ''argument'' in my life. Secondly, the argument in itself is nonsensical, because it merely seems like a burst of infantile frustration, rather than actually targeting the questions at hand.
By destroying what they have built, the government is going to metaphorically shoot their own people in the foot. I have never seen such an asinine ''argument'' in my life.
It's sort of like the Russian strategy when Napoleon invaded. They burned Moscow so the French wouldn't get it.
Secondly, the argument in itself is nonsensical, because it merely seems like a burst of infantile frustration, rather than actually targeting the questions at hand.
One of the only reasons we pay you is because you're a nuclear country with an unstable government. Also, you have Taliban and al-Qaida who we really don't want getting a bomb.
Er no, if you read carefully, Punisher has said that Pakistan has fought two wars for USA, including helping them push out the Soviets. Pakistan has lost thousands of lives since joining the U.S. war on terror in the form of both soldiers and civilians. Pakistan is a major military base for the USA, and has provided much aid on the war on terror. Read carefully.
It's sort of like the Russian strategy when Napoleon invaded. They burned Moscow so the French wouldn't get it.
Unlike the Russians, you're suggesting it in a fit of childish pique. You don't do it as part of a strategy to recover it eventually, you're proposing it simply because in a situation Israel is dismantled, you just don't want anyone, even Israelis, from using it.
I'm sorry, but haven't we been discussing this all along? Israel's legality, the conflict's future, the UN, all this ring a bell?
