P01135809 goes after "Liberal Jews" on Jewish New Year

[Dill]

(09-26-2023, 10:48 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I can’t take you seriously with this sentence because you don’t actually know what an insurrection is. I suggest you read my last 2 posts and do some serious soul searching on your keen ability to stretch reality and your apparent unawareness of your talent in the area. 

1) Why is withdrawing from the Iran deal a good thing for Israel?

-It was too lenient on Iran and would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, continue its support for terrorism and develop ballistic missiles. These are the words of Netanyahu. They were the biggest supporters of Trump’s decision to withdraw. Whether or not it was a good thing for everyone, who knows, but we’re discussing what he did for Israel. Next.

2) Why is recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights a good thing?

It provides a buffer zone for Israel from Syria. Next.

3) Israel controlling Gaza and the West Bank. It’s good for Israel. Screw Palestine. They’re notorious instigators. Don’t mess with our allies. 

Looks like you don't want to take me seriously because I dropped the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of a coup and insurrection on you, and you have dodged engagement with that. Do they not know what a coup is? Why don't they? Everyone but those who take Trump at his word is "stretching reality"? Beyond what is implied in a claim that 3 guns doesn't meet the standard, you've put forward no definition at all beyond your own eye test, which seems uninformed by law or political science.

1) why is withdrawing from the Iran Deal a bad thing? Because it allows Iran to ditch inspection and go back to creating fissile material, without which it cannot make a bomb. MOSSAD knew it was a good thing for Israel. Iran would continue its support for "terrorism" and develop ballistic missilies without breakout ability.
Without the deal, Iran would continue its support for "terrorism" and develop ballistic missiles WITH much shorter break out time and more fissile material. It was certainly a bad deal for allies like France, who after investing billions and preparing to enter a new market, suddenly had to withdraw. That's what you get for expecting reliable policy from the US.  Next.

2) Why is recognizing Israeli sovereignty of the Golan Heights a bad thing? Because seizing another country's sovereign territory in war and claiming it for your own has been against international law since WWII, when the Axis powers set the standard for appropriating and occupying land of other nations. As I just reminded OtherMike, the US usually goes to war to stop that kind of thing. "Buffer zone" for the aggressor nation is not an acceptable reason for breaking an international law supposed to protect everyone.

3) Israel controlling Gaza and the West Bank means permanent occupation of other people's land and control of their livelihoods. I don't know what you mean by "notorious instigators," but it sounds like you are not on board with the concept of international human rights.

This is the basis of our disagreement in US foreign policy--I want to uphold international law as rule of law based on human rights; you do not. That's a fair statement, isn't it? Or how would you disagree?