no, im saying that offering peace with one hand, whilst lobbing bombs at schools with the other makes you not good people. Im saying that talking of peace publicly, whilst calling for the destruction of another people isnt the actions of someone looking for peace. Im saying that if you do want peace, if you actually really and truly want peace, then deliberately provoking a larger power which brings horror to your own people isnt just stupid, its evil. Someone, somewhere will need to be the one to renounce violence if the cycle is ever to end. The Palestinians have as much responsibility for that as Israel.

I tolerate and sympathise with both sides. I also see that both sides are being failed by their leadership. I dont see Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinians as the victim. Nor do I think is Israel is justified in everything they do. Unlike you I can see there are shades of grey, and i can also see that whilst ever the argument is about who is right and who is wrong, and not how can we solve the problem we will never move forward. It may make you feel good that you are supporting the little guy, it may make you feel nice to write a narrative about the brave little Palestinians and the mean nasty Israelis but it isnt true and doesnt help and only moves away from a positive outcome not towards it.

And what facts might I have argued against, pray tell? I guess you missed the post where I specifically agreed that the invasion of Gaza depicted in your new favourite YT clip was an act of evil?

You really ought to try paying attention in these threads of yours. Just for the sake of variety, like.

They have every right. What they [idon't[/i have a right to do - any more than Israel does - is deliberately target civilians.


Oh. My. Word.

Whoa! You're back. I thought you'd disappeared up some sophist's alley attempting to EQUATE the suffering of an occupied, embargoed and nigh-on defenseless people with a that of an invading nuclear power which recently killed 400 civilians for every 1 casualty it suffered.

I'm glad you like my "new favourite YT clip". Indeed, both you and it together have re-affirmed my waning faith in man's ability to accept total demolition of argument through force of pure reason and still stay smiling.

The Palestinians are in a fight or die situation. Just because you don't put on the uniform of the IDF and drop white phosphorous on Palestinian hospitals this DOES NOT mean you are totally free from all responsibility. Israel is very much a [iparticipatory[/i democracy. And if you participate in the destruction of an entire people you have no RIGHT to expect the other side to walk calmly onto Israeli guns and leave you to enjoy the fruits of THEIR suffering.

Another gem from the good Dr. Finkelstein:

[i"In the course of the attack on Lebanon 18,000 to 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese were killed. If you go to the Israeli web site - they post the number of Israelis who have been killed - or I should say Jews & Israelis killed - since the VERY BEGINNING OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, which they date from the 1860s. So from the 1860s to the present - a period of 140+ years - they give a figure for the total number of Jewish & Israelis causalities of 21,000. So it's 21,000 over a 140 year period. That figure includes all victims of terrorism, as well as all victims of the '48 war, '67 war, '73 war, 69-70 Suez war, the 1987 first Intafada, the second Intafada - the whole period of 140 years - 21,000 casualties vs. [u21,000 casualties over a three and a month period[/u. The major difference being Israelis casualties were overwhelmingly combatants whereas Palestinian casualties were overwhelmingly civilian."[/i

The relevance of ' nuclear ' capability to your argument is what exactly?

Maybe Hamas ( chosen to represent these defenseless people ) should consider their actions , only an idiot would poke a Tiger with a stick, but if you are poking the tiger while hiding behind women and children, I suppose thats ok

And as you have so clearly stated, numerous times, Hamas is a democratically elected leadership, your argument works both ways.

I have a job. Sometimes it interferes with my ability to post on here.

I see your unfailing ability to completely miss the point of any opposing argument remains as razor sharp as ever. I hope you don't teach Critical Thinking.


If you ever manage to demolish so much as the flimsiest argument through any method whatsoever I'll be sure and let you know. All you've demonstrated on this thread is an inability to even comprehend the argument you're supposed to be involved in.

I'd have thought it obvious. Any nation that has demonstrated such low regard for the lives of an entire people (including dropping white phosphorous on the al-Quds hospital in Gaza during the last campaign) must be considered serious about using any weapon in its nal.

I'm fairly sure that the current Israeli government wasn't elected with 100% of the vote. Or even a 100% turnout.

What was your earlier point regarding collective punishment again?

You seriously think that even Netanyahu would drop nukes on Gaza or the West Bank? That's in the same league as Blair's claims regarding Iraq's long range missile capability.

Hamas aren't the ones claiming to have half a trillion dollars of stealth weaponry accurate enough to fly up your urethrae without touching the sides. Do you even KNOW who the attacking side is here? Have you even looked at Cod'ead's maps?

Seriously, I just don't get this Israeli-fetishism you guys are taken by. How much more Palestinian land, how many more lives can the Israelis take - in your opinion - before you would at the very least consider the possibility that Israel has no intention of honoring a lasting peace - much less a Palestinian state?

Or is it simply impossible for you to admit such - even if the Israelis took every last acre and exterminated every last Palestinian?

I didn't vote for Cameron. This doesn't mean I don't recognise him as the legitimate leader of the country. And if David Cameron decided to roll the tanks into Wales, kick the locals off their land and into squalid ghettos and then massacred 400 civilians to every 1 life lost on this side of the border I certainly wouldn't expect A RIGHT to safety from any Welshman just because I didn't vote for him. If you would you're a bigger fool than I thought.



Hamas has Israel under siege? I thought it was the other way around.

I didnt think cost was really that much of a moral bellweather for war. Would it be better if Israel were doing the same damage with household products? Does it make it worse that a child died because of an expensive weapon than cheap weapons? Is there only one attacking side? Is Hamas' launching rockets at a school a defensive measure? Is Hamas' preaching vengeance and the rockets they were launching which gave Israel an excuse for this purely defensive? If so it was a pretty idiotic effort. Yes, i found it strange that it conflated Israel with being Jewish. I found it strange that it highlighted were Jewish people were living, like the inference was Jews werent allowed to be in certain places or that Jews settling in these places was an inherently bad thing. I also think you could create a similar map showing the growth of Islam in certain parts of Britain, and i expect I wouldnt like the type of people who would choose to do that or the purposes they would use it for. Not that i am accusing codhead of anti-antisemitism.

I'm not sure what you think i have said which fetishises Israel, would you like to provide us with some examples? Meh, arbitrary boundries invoked to divide us are of little interest to me. Probably quite a lot. I have no reason to believe Israel is some blood hungry nation fighting for the sake of it, im sure that Israeli's would rather not be involved in a violent, long lasting, expensive war, im pretty sure they would rather it wasnt happening. Until there is some evidence, ill stick with a more sensible and less fantastical expectation, that Israel would rather have peace, and if there was an acceptable plan on the table they would take it.

Or something a bit less dramatic, and something based a little more in reality.

Last year Haaretz reported that Israel has nuclear weapons permanently targeted at Gaza and Lebanon (you can bet Iran, Egypt and Syria too). They were unsure about the West Bank (no doubt because of all the settlements).

Would Netanyahu authorize a strike? Only if the IDF suddenly becomes incapable of achieving the very same ends.

So you are suggesting that Isreal intends to wipe out all those countries in your post, killing every person living there? , it has stated that as a fundamental part of its existence?

And the really scary thing is that you're 100% serious. Deary me. Do you believe in Original Sin as well?


Maybe you could quote the definition of collective punishment that stipulates siege as a condition?

Punishing an entire population for the transgressions of a subset of that population is collective punishment. Lobbing rockets into heavily populated civilian areas qualifies just as much as the larger scale atrocities perpetrated by the IDF.

Netanyahu would authorise the use of nukes in Gaza but not in the West Bank because of the settlements?

Do you have [iany[/i idea of the range of effect of even 'tactical' nukes?

It isn't. But it certainly is true to say Israel possesses the cost-derived technical ability to hit with the kind of precision Hamas cannot.



It's an inherently **illegal** thing if you believe in democracy realised within the United Nations. And no-one is preventing Jews (or anyone else for that matter) from living outside the 1967 boundaries - just living under Jewish rule.



I was wondering when the old anyone-who-disagrees-with-Israel's-right-to-do-what-it-likes-against-anyone-it-chooses card would be played.



Then perhaps you could push yourself to discussing the boundaries that DO. Which - if not the all-but-universally agreed up 1967 boundaries Hamas has repeatedly offered to accept (with recognition of Israel's right to exist) - do you think Israel ought to honour?



80% of Palestinian land? 90%? Bear in mind not all is habitable.



Who said anything about "fighting for the sake of it"? Given the massive expansion of Israeli settlements into occupied land it's patently obvious Israel isn't fighting purely because it gets a kick out of slaughtering Palestinians, although given the wealth of pretty shocking quotes made by senior Israeli officials - right up to Ben Gurion - about Palestinains, describing them as "dogs" and even going so far as to deny their existence completely, it's pretty clear that at least some get a kick out of it. As for the expense - for years Israel was bankrolled by the US so money was no issue. Over the last few years war has become big business and Israel is making quite a tidy profit out of the arms business it has developed over the bodies in Gaza and the West Bank.



Only a fool or someone trying to convince himself more than anyone else can argue it is completely "fantastical" to believe Israel is engaged in the conquest of the Palestinians. One wonders how strong your "belief" in Israel's peaceful nature will be in, say, twenty years when the Palestinians are either dead, living in exile or scratching out a meagre existence on scrub desert bantustans. Will you jump ship with the rest of public opinion - or will you still be denying what everyone else will regard as somewhere between Apartheid and a full blown Palestinian Holocaust? I wonder ...

Belief seems to be your business so I'm afraid I can't help you.



There you go again fixing the scales in order to perfectly balance unequal weight. Only in Koshland (the irony!) can the suffering of the very few equal the suffering of the many. No one in his right mind would dream of suggesting the Native Americans were EQUALLY as bad as the settlers because they occasionally attacked civilian outposts before they were all but exterminated as a race. Ditto the South Americans facing the conquistadors.



I'm sure Israel understands the range and effects of nuclear weapons. After all, it built them and I very much doubt they sit targetless in their silos or wherever they are.

In any case - you're fighting an uphill battle convincing anyone of Netanyahu's committment to nuclear safety whilst he's currently calling for strikes upon Iran's entire nuclear development program (the fallout from which will likely irradiate two continents to some lesser or greater degree).

Only in a world where the word "target" and "fire at" are equivalent.

[url=http://www.alternet.org/world/killing-people-mowing-lawn-how-israeli-hardliners-and-official-washington-dehumanize-peopleIsrael is simply "mowing the lawn"[/url

When you have an Israeli defence minister using the terminology of bringing '[ia bigger shoah[/i' against the Palestinian people, then all rationale appears to have gone out the window.

Yes, Israel does have more money.

How can the a democracy ban living under Jewish rule? And how is it inherently illegal under UN law for a Jew to live in a certain place?

Yes, what i was infering was the thing i said it specifically wasnt. If you want to hide behind the 'i cant say anything bad about Israel without being accused of being an antisemite' card, you can. But if you use it in relation to an argument which specfies nobody is being accused of antisemitism then you are going to look like a complete moron who lacks basic comprehension skills. Maybe you protest too much.
I honestly, honestly don’t care. They are lines on a map.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You are on to a losing battle if you want to compare some of the nonsensical rhetoric coming out of both sides.
So you are now arguing that Israel makes money out of spending all that cash on the iron dome, and rockets, and reservists, and airstrikes. As you have already admitted, Israel could easily take over all Palestinian lands quite easily. So the reason they are prolonging this dispute is now, apparently, to make money. That’s a pretty insidious accusation, what next are you going to accuse black people of liking fried chicken? For someone so sensitive about being labelled an antisemite you seem to fall on some pretty stereotypical arguments.

There we go, we have the trifecta. The accusations of political conspiracy, being money hungry, and now the invocation of the holocaust. Why don’t you bang on about the jewish owned press and how Jews infiltrate high levels of government next and we can have ourselves a real klan meeting? Yeehaw.