israel doesn't commit war crimes.

[seekingfreedom]

Their land, their livelihood, their farms, everything was stolen from them. Their food is now rationed. Their tunnels were to get to the sea so they could fish. Hamas also uses them now. When a people are oppressed, they do what they have to do to survive. The problem is, we, in this country, don't know what real persecution is. We have never lived it.

Did you know JFK told Israel that he would cut off funding if the proceeded with nuclear arms? Well, he didn't live long enough to stop them. Israel is the big, bad boy on the block. They have nothing to fear.

I posted a link about JFK below.

I took this quote from a book and I posted a link, if you want to read more about the history.

It is sometimes alleged that, in fact, the real intention of the jews was to have the whole of Palestine, (including parts allotted to the Arabs), but they wished to obtain it in stages-first get what they could from the UN and expand by force. This claim is supported, for example, by a letter of Ben Gurion to his wife, where he says"' Establish a Jewish state at once, even if it is not in the whole land…the rest will come in the course of time.'

Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947 - Ahron Bregman - Google Books

JFK told Israel: 'If you want U.S. aid, shut down your nuclear bomb factory' -- Secret History -- Sott.net

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Israel had the immediate right and obligation to defend it's own children from aggression, and to do it as effectively as it could, even if it meant the aggressor's children would be killed. Tough stuff indeed. The blame for the children being killed is on Hamas, all they would have to do to stop the war is stop being the aggressor. Problem is, none of the pro-Hamas group, or anyone else, has come up with an effective, decisive, immediate way to stop Hamas without harm coming to non-combatants. Hamas breaks every truce, and Israel will not negotiate while under fire.

It is Hamas, the "barbaric terrorists", the aggressor, that is causing every single death, this is the elephant in the room, but that does not seem to be your emphasis, far from it. When people see dead and wounded children on TV, their angst should be against Hamas, not Israel.

 

[Armoured]

Israel had the immediate right and obligation to defend it's own children from aggression, and to do it as effectively as it could, even if it meant the aggressor's children would be killed. Tough stuff indeed. The blame for the children being killed is on Hamas, all they would have to do to stop the war is stop being the aggressor. Problem is, none of the pro-Hamas group, or anyone else, has come up with an effective, decisive, immediate way to stop Hamas without harm coming to non-combatants. Hamas breaks every truce, and Israel will not negotiate while under fire.

It is Hamas, the "barbaric terrorists", the aggressor, that is causing every single death, this is the elephant in the room, but that does not seem to be your emphasis, far from it. When people see dead and wounded children on TV, their angst should be against Hamas, not Israel.

*Eye roll* I'm sick of saying it.

But for your own edification, go google "proportionate response" and see if you can work out why people are having an issue here.

 

[ebia]

Israel had the immediate right and obligation to defend it's own children from aggression, [ /quote]
Except the actual risk to Israeli children was a tiny fraction of the risk posed to them by the traffic...

and to do it as effectively as it could, even if it meant the aggressor's children would be killed.

Except that the victims are not the children of the other aggressor - Hamas - but of the Palestinian children in general...

"It still wouldn't be proportionate.

Tough stuff indeed. The blame for the children being killed is on Hamas, all they would have to do to stop the war is stop being the aggressor. Problem is, none of the pro-Hamas group, or anyone else, has come up with an effective, decisive, immediate way to stop Hamas without harm coming to non-combatants. Hamas breaks every truce, and Israel will not negotiate while under fire. It is Hamas, the "barbaric terrorists", the aggressor, that is causing every single death, this is the elephant in the room, but that does not seem to be your emphasis, far from it. When people see dead and wounded children on TV, their angst should be against Hamas, not Israel.

This campaign won't stop Hamas either. It gives Hamas the best recruiting ground it could hope for.

Hamas is culpable does not mean Israel is not also culpable. "They are guilty so we are not" is a logical fallacy.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Israel had the immediate right and obligation to defend it's own children from aggression, [ /quote]
Except the actual risk to Israeli children was a tiny fraction of the risk posed to them by the traffic...


Except that the victims are not the children of the other aggressor - Hamas - but of the Palestinian children in general...

"It still wouldn't be proportionate.

This campaign won't stop Hamas either. It gives Hamas the best recruiting ground it could hope for.

Hamas is culpable does not mean Israel is not also culpable. "They are guilty so we are not" is a logical fallacy.

None of which makes Israel responsible for Hamas aggression or the subsequent killing of innocents.

 

[ebia]

Yes it does. If someone from inside a school fence throws stones at my kid that is wrong, but that doesn't justify me gunning down everyone inside the school.

 

[Armoured]

Yes it does. If someone from inside a school fence throws stones at my kid that is wrong, but that doesn't justify me gunning down everyone inside the school.

And that is pretty much a perfect analogy for the situation.

 

[pdudgeon]

Yes it does. If someone from inside a school fence throws stones at my kid that is wrong, but that doesn't justify me gunning down everyone inside the school.

yes, but your post also assumes the unspoken idea that those in charge of the school will be there to handle the discipline problem so that you don't have to.

now if those persons in charge of that school agree with the stone thrower
that your child should be a victim, then it would become your problem.

 

[ebia]

yes, but your post also assumes the unspoken idea that those in charge of the school will be there to handle the discipline problem so that you don't have to. now if those persons in charge of that school agree with the stone thrower that your child should be a victim, then it would become your problem.

I still wouldn't be justified in gunning down the whole school.

 

[Armoured]

yes, but your post also assumes the unspoken idea that those in charge of the school will be there to handle the discipline problem so that you don't have to.

now if those persons in charge of that school agree with the stone thrower
that your child should be a victim, then it would become your problem.

No one is making any such assumptions.

Everyone accepts Israel has a right to engage Hamas militarily.

The issue is that Israel is causing unnecessary civilian casualties. Criticising Israel for this does not indicate support for Hamas or hatred of Israel in any way. #7000006.

 

[Armoured]

I still wouldn't be justified in gunning down the whole school.

Well. I thought it was a perfect analogy and too simple for anyone to twist around.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Yes it does. If someone from inside a school fence throws stones at my kid that is wrong, but that doesn't justify me gunning down everyone inside the school.

"Everyone"? I think you'll find that Israel could do much, much more damage and death if it chose to.

If your attacker comes at you with a knife, would you put down your gun and grab a knife?

 

[Armoured]

"Everyone"? I think you'll find that Israel could do much, much more damage and death if it chose to.

Ah, the good old "we only kicked him 3 times in the stomach, we could have kicked him 5 times in the head" defence.

If your attacker comes at you with a knife, would you put down your gun and grab a knife?

*eyeroll*

 

[seekingfreedom]

Israel is the aggressor and has been the aggressor every single day, by the actions it commits against the Palestinians on a daily basis. Their goal from the beginning was to take the land by force and they believe that their actions are sanctioned by G-d. Not the God that I worship.

Article: Israel and Palestine: Who is The Victim and Who Is the Aggressor? | OpEdNews

The Palestinians, in Israeli officials’ own words | Mondoweiss

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Israel stops when Hamas stops, not very often and not for long. If that adds up to Israel being the aggressor, I don't see how.

 

[seekingfreedom]

In other words, you haven't read the articles, or the quotes by Israeli officials, or the history. I hear and read the Israeli side everyday. People need to hear and read the Palestinians' history. Why are there Jews that support the Palestinians? You are bound by your political and fundamentalist ideology. That's a tough cookie to break.
It's time for me to stop debating and start praying. God bless.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

In other words, you haven't read the articles, or the quotes by Israeli officials, or the history. I hear and read the Israeli side everyday. People need to hear and read the Palestinians' history. Why are there Jews that support the Palestinians? You are bound by your political and fundamentalist ideology. That's a tough cookie to break.
It's time for me to stop debating and start praying. God bless.

God bless you too.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Jews bought their land in Israel, despite what you might hear from the propagandists:


In 1892, the Ottoman government decided to prohibit the sale of land in Palestine to Jews, even if they were Ottoman citizens.[7] Nevertheless, during the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, many successful land purchases were made through organizations such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PJCA), Palestine Land Development Company and the Jewish National Fund.

From the 1880s to the 1930s, most Jewish land purchases were made in the coastal plain, the Jezreel Valley, the Jordan Valley and to a lesser extent the Galilee.[8] This was due to a preference for land that was cheap and without tenants.[8] There were two main reasons why these areas were sparsely populated. The first reason being when the Ottoman power in the rural areas began to diminish in the seventeenth century, many people moved to more centralized areas to secure protection against the lawless Bedouin tribes.[8] The second reason for the sparsely populated areas of the coastal plains was the soil type. The soil, covered in a layer of sand, made it impossible to grow the staple crop of Palestine, corn.[8] As a result this area remained uncultivated and under populated.[4] "The sparse Arab population in the areas where the Jews usually bought their land enabled the Jews to carry out their purchase without engendering a massive displacement and eviction of Arab tenants".[8]

In the 1930s most land was bought from small landowners. Of the land that the Jews bought, "52.6% of the lands were bought from big non-Palestinian landowners, 24.6% from Palestinian-Arab landowners and only 9.4% from the Fellahin".[10]


The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.

Jewish land purchase in Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LoAmmi]

In other words, you haven't read the articles, or the quotes by Israeli officials, or the history. I hear and read the Israeli side everyday. People need to hear and read the Palestinians' history. Why are there Jews that support the Palestinians? You are bound by your political and fundamentalist ideology. That's a tough cookie to break.
It's time for me to stop debating and start praying. God bless.

The foundation of Israel, land ownership, who deserves what, and all of that are complicated issues that neither side gets a clean victory on. Both sides make valid points and both sides do a bad job at refuting the points of the other side.

Here's something though. Focusing on 1948-1967 isn't helping anybody. At all. The world needs to figure out how to make it work now, in 2014, going off of the situation today not the situation 60 years ago. Yes, we can take into consideration what people lost and what actions have put us into this situation, but we know it isn't going to go back to the 1948 or 1967 boarders. What can we now that will work?

 

[ebia]

Israel wants peace.

Yeh. Right.
That's why they have systematically occupied Palestinian territory and just as frequently scuppered peace talks as the other side.

There are sufficiently influential players on both sides who do not want peace.