First of all, I meant that the Palestinians should have more government, which I admit was a faulty argument considering they do have a government, now. I forgot that the government represented the West Bank also. While Jerusalem is still occupied, right? Ariel Sharom's evacuation of Jewish settlements, and and the establishment of Palestinian government is great for Palestine and should have discouraged Hamas. Unfortunately I do not know if their popularity has increased or decreased since gaining power. If it has then maybe invading Palestine was the right thing to do. If their popularity has decreased maybe because of those rocket attacks during the cease-fire that we are still unsure of?

And yes I do think we should negotiate, maybe not with Terrorist exactly. The demands of Hamas and Palestinians in general are very similar except for the complete destruction of Israel, so negotiation with the Government of Palestine should be reasonable. I understand the reason behind not negotiating with terrorist, but I believe that in many cases that is ignoring the requests of people and countries that have very little political influence or they have corrupt governments. It is one thing to negotiate with terrorists in a hostage situation where giving in to the demands may result in the killing of hostages anyway, and another to negotiate with terrorists in a peaceful setting. Do you believe that the Oslo Accords accomplished nothing in the way of peace?

Half of your post was also stated in past posts multiple times. Its getting dull.

The part about a united Israeli government with Palestinian representation is a great idea, I'd love to see it, but I think separate states is more likely, certainly for the next few decades. The comparison with an Obama is also far from perfect, when even a hundred years ago we were at the very least a united nation with no where near the level of persecution that occurs in Palestine. It will more likely take a century or two for that to happen, if at all.

The previous post was directed at obiwan.

I apologize that I didn't read this entire thread, so some things I say might have been said already.

First off, from much earlier, Obiwan, did you really say that World War II was caused because the Allies were NOT harsh enough on Germany? You have that completely backwards: the Treaty of Versailles gave parts of Germany to other countries, limited the German military, went totally against the idea of popular sovereignty, forced Germany into a huge debt, and even blamed Germany for WWI which it didn't start. That was why Hitler was able to come to power; Germany was ruined. That's also how appeasement started, because France and England realized that the treaty was unfair, and that Germany deserved the territories stolen from it. Clearly, WWII was able to happen because the Allies were too harsh in punishing Germany.

Second, I've seen the argument that Israel deserves the land its on because that's where Jews lived for thousands of years. Right after they stole it from the Palestinians. Even reading the Bible, which would be biased towards the Jews, it is clear that the society depicted in Joshua and Judges is not good in any way, being militaristic, draconian, and genocidal. If anyone deserves the land because they were there first, its the Palestinians, although I personally think that that argument is weak.

Third, Israel has only existed since the end of WWII, when we felt bad for the Jews and decided to steal someone's land for them. If a country thinks that the Jews deserve compensation, give them some land that they own, not steal it.

Fourth, neither side is innocent. Sure, Hamas "started" it by firing rockets into Israel. I don't really think that Hamas started the conflict that has existed for thousands of years, however. Hamas had provocation for attacking Israel, probably claiming that they stole land. Israel had some justification for taking the land, and so on. Looking at this as an isolated event is absurd.

Fifth, the conflict isn't going to end when one side loses. I see three potential outcomes. First, most likely, the conflict won't end in the foreseeable future. Second, which I find very unlikely, nuclear war. Third, which is the solution I prefer, is that the US threatens to withdraw all support from Israel unless they start being sane, unlike any country in the Middle East. By sane I mean that they agree to any ceasefire, only hit military targets, and are open to negotiation. If they refuse, at least they aren't causing us any problems.

And I don't really see what the US has to gain from supporting Israel. Our support for Israel is why so many people hate us in the Middle East, and we don't get anything from it.

@Mick:

"...08% dead civilians, with at least 25% of them children."

Where's your source, for that, sir? Because EVERY STATION AND WEB-OUTLET I've seen says it's more like 25-50% civilians (with 50% being the extraordinarily rare amount, most place it at about a third- 40%, but NO WHERE near 80%)

As to your question whether I'd "kill every woman and child waving a Hamas flag"- NO, I would NOT. But if they were were slipping Hamas rounds of ammunition and working to make bombs and rockets that they KNEW would be fired at Israel, THOSE civilians- yes, THEY are fair game. A six moht year old lying in the street with a Hamas flag as it's only blanket? NO. A thirty-six year old housewife screwing together rockets? Sorry, but.........

I think you see my stance- some of those six month year olds and innocent others can't always be avoided- that's just war; you WILL accidentally kill some innocents, and if you do not believe that is the nature of warfare, then I suggest you bone up on your history, sir.

But to be fair:

If there was a munitions factory right next to a schoolyard or mosque or some other sort of public building of mass congregation (which I would not doubt), and it was heavily guarded by Hamas militants with rifles and machine guns and mortars, and it was a choice between:

A) Send in infantry and risk losing tens to hundreds of your own men as well as the some innocent civilians and Hamas militants

OR

B) Fire mortars and/or drop bombs on the site, destroying the factory and killing most if not all the innocents and Hamas militants while lsoing little or none of your own people

As a military man, responsible for the lives of your troops that you may with choice A condemn to death or choice B save many if not all of them at the cost of more innocents and/or Hamas lives-

Which would YOU choose?

I ask not just Mick, but all on this thread: what would YOU do?



And I hardly need to point out such a decision might not have been necesary if Hamas had not built these centers near civilians in the first place............

So- kill many of your own, or kill many to ALL of the enemy and civilians?

zuzak...that was perfect. Except for this part:

"Sure, Hamas "started" it by firing rockets into Israel."

This isn't true...by Israel's own admission:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c

What say you now obiwan?

"I think you see my stance- some of those six month year olds and innocent others can't always be avoided- that's just war"

Except it was a war that the people you support started.

Good job! Let's go for 600, people! Come on! Type jibberish is nessecary.

Diplomat, I fail to see what your spam accomplishes. If this thread annoys you, ignore it.

Anyway, I got the impression that Israel was specifically targeting schools and other civilian targets, not that they were attacking military targets and accidentally hit civilians, or had to hit civilians to hit military targets. For that reason, Obiwan's example doesn't apply here.
Israel has hit a several schools and UN forces, who told the Israelis where they were going. I don't see how Israel isn't using terrorism here.

Why on earth would they do that? For what purpose would Israel specifically target schools?

it's a psy-op invictus. it's demoralizing.

and they are absolutely doing it on purpose. I know someone who helped plan the war in somalia and afganistan as a psychological profiler. it wa shis job to pick the targets that would have the biggest effect. schools and mosques were always first choices. Israel has hit what... 6 mosques and 3 schools so far?

Sure you do.

Israel is commiting genocide.

I certainly dont condone what hamas (democratically elected by the way) is doing, hitting civilians and such whether on purpose or not. but if I were in their shoes I would be dissapointed only that I didnt have bigger rockets. what Israel has done to the palestinians... the star of david on Israel's flag should be replaced with a swastika. it would certainly be a better representation.

I'm not going to argue with you about my friend, but you have no reason to doubt me, and i have no reason to lie.
you automatically assuming my statement is false with no inquistiton is very immature

I have no reason to doubt that a dropout transient is friends with a former high ranking government official who planned American operations in Afghanistan and Somalia which specifically targeted mosques and schools BECAUSE they were mosques and schools?

Mea culpa, Biff. Mea maxima culpa.

dropout transient political activists make alot of friends. all kinds of friends.
so its not too terribly unlikely that a high ranking government official that planned war atrocities, then quit the military in protest of those atrocities would meet someone like me.
A disgruntled vetran and an anarchist make a good team.

I also don't beleive that the US military in Somalia and Afghanistan or the Israelis in Gaza are specifically targeting schools and mosques because they are inherently a school or a mosque. If they are targets, it's probably because they enemy is using the building as a front and a civilian shield. You can't do that under those silly, sacred slips of paper called the rules of war.

The burden of proof to make such an inflammatory accusation that civilians are intentionally targeted is on you. That's quite a serious thing to say. Put down some real proof that isn't from a lefty website and you might turn me.

Sic, don't bother. Militarist conservative types are always right, and their government never lies about anything.

499!

500!

Only 99 to go! Keep restating your stance!

stop spamming

Invictus do you really beleive that all the nations are actually gentlemen, and they care not about winning but making sure they always follow the rules?

before I make an argument I want to make sure you'll hear it

I'm hear you

No, I don't believe that at all. I also don't come to the table with a prejudiced view that everything a government says is a lie and that they would intentionally attack civilians as a matter of course.

And you've given me no reason to think differently.

no you come to the table with the prejudiced view that everything a government says is the truth, which is far worse

I never said that, you're assuming. If these things are really happening of course I'll be swayed, but a bunch of strangers on the internet citing lefty websites and phantom government buddies won't do it.

I can't see what's wrong with that way of thinking.

Why do you give government the benefit of the doubt? This quote seems appropriate again...

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

You aren't a moral coward, are you?

What evidence? And I mean unambiguous evidence, not loony spin. If it all these things people say were real I'd be out there waving the red flag, but there are much more sensible explanations out there for all the accusations leveled against Israel's and America's actions and all other kooky conspiracy theories.

like?