sourmìlk wrote:You put my responses against the wrong quotes. You said "why is it okay to relocate Jews to the middle east...?" etc. and I responded that it's not. Setting aside a chunk in the USA for Jews wouldn't require forcefully relocating Jews unless you expected any Jews to live there. They weren't going to move from Israel.
I think Griffin is talking more about the 11, 000, 000 Jews living spread across the world at the turn of the last century, not the odd 78,000 living in Israel at the time.
sourmìlk wrote:I've explained the problem with this reasoning. You seem to forget that Israel hasn't only tried violence. If they had, I might agree with you. No, they've tried negotiations, which lead to the second and first intifadas, they've tried leaving them alone, which lead to the rise of power of Hamas, and they've tried force, which suppresses but does not eliminate the attacks. Israel has tried not responding and it hasn't worked. It is up to the Palestinians to stop their aggression, not Israel to stop defending itself.
sourmìlk wrote:As for assigning equal blame: Hamas unprovokedly targets and kills civilians, then they use their own civilians as shields to ward off a response. Israel has only ever responded in self-defense, and most of the time they don't even respond. How can you possibly assign equal blame to Israel and a terrorist group?
Because both their hands are bloody and dirty. From Le Monde Diplomatic
This way of describing Israeli recourse to force ignores the foundational issue: were the attacks in any legal sense “defensive” in character in the first place? An inquiry into the surrounding circumstances shows an absence of any kind of defensive necessity: a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had been in effect since 19 July 2008 had succeeded in reducing cross-border violence virtually to zero; Hamas consistently offered to extend the ceasefire, even to a longer period of ten years; the breakdown of the ceasefire is not primarily the result of Hamas rocket fire, but came about mainly as a result of an Israeli air attack on 4 November that killed six Hamas fighters in Gaza.
This^, by the way says the exact opposite of what you claimed above.
These two sides should not be viewed as equally responsible for the recent events. Israel initiated the Gaza campaign without adequate legal foundation or just cause, and was responsible for causing the overwhelming proportion of devastation and the entirety of civilian suffering. Israeli reliance on a military approach to defeat or punish Gaza was intrinsically “criminal”, and as such demonstrative of both violations of the law of war and the commission of crimes against humanity.
There is another element that strengthens the allegation of aggression. The population of Gaza had been subjected to a punitive blockade for 18 months when Israel launched its attacks. This blockade was widely, and correctly, viewed as collective punishment in a form that violated Articles 33 and 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention governing the conduct of an occupying power in relation to the civilian population living under occupation. This policy was itself condemned as a crime against humanity, as well as a grave breach of international humanitarian law.
From flotilla raids, to cast lead and goldstone, to blockades. Israel hands are just as dirty as anybody else's.
sourmìlk wrote:nitePhyyre: your insults and obscenities are not an appropriate way of expressing your disagreement with mosc. Please don't do that again. And by the way, he isn't wrong. I said that most Jews left Israel, not all of them. He was absolutely correct in saying that Jews had lived in Israel for over 3000 years.
You are right, I apologize to everyone who isn't mosc for disrupting what is more or less civil discussion.