The only reason why Israel shows restraint is because the Western world have fucking had enough, and no matter how many politicians they scare and/or bribe, they are afraid of massive reactions which may result in the isolation of Israel. And no matter how smart you think Israelis are, their state would NOT survive in isolation.

Let's try to do this the scientific way, shall we?

Here's an alternative theory. Israel is just trying to protect itself. Over time, the Palestinians, with a stress on Hamas, have started combining their strategy. Instead of trying to directly fight Israel (through suicide bombers and rockets), they now employ a combined strategy, involving provoking Israel to the point Israel has no choice but to respond, and then sacrificing Palestinians (by placing them deliberately in harm's way) to gain two objectives. One is to make Israel not attack strategic locations (headquarters, ammo depos, etc.). The other is, when Israel does attack, to have as high as possible body counts, broadcasting horrendous pictures of death, swaying public opinion, convincing people like you that Israel is horrible.

Now, lets see if we can devise predictions based on which we can distinguish between the theories. If your theory is correct, hurting Palestinians would be an agenda inside Israel. Papers in Hebrew would write about it supportively. Politicians would brag about it during elections. More importantly, since, as you said, the world media's attention is giving this issue more and more focus, limiting Israel's ability to act, the Palestinian casualties count would be in a constant decline. You'd expect a peek around the time Israel was physically occupying areas, with a sharp decline once Gaza was evicted, and a further decline as time goes on since. You certainly wouldn't expect the IDF to invent never before used methods to warn people that an area is going to be bombed.

If I am correct, however, not hitting Palestinians would be an agenda. The Hebrew media would be focused around damage done to Israel, rather than to the Palestinians. When reporting Palestinian innocent casualties, it would be in a downbeat, rather than an upbeat, tone. You would hope to see official Hamas actions attempting to maximize Palestinian casualties. You'd also expect casualties count would be higher after Israel withdrew from Gaza than before. Finally, the "reactive Israel" theory predicts that major escalations by Israel take place after major attacks on civilian population by Hamas.

So which is it? Where is your smoking gun? Where are the huge happy headlines in Israeli papers hailing the high death toll this operation has had on Palestinians? Where are the politicians bragging about how many Palestinians they killed?

On the other hand, here is Hamas telling people to stay put when warned by Israel an area is going to be bombed. Here is a Hamas spokeman taking pride in sacrificing civilians. Here is Hamas firing a missile from a press studio. Please note these are all primary sources. They are not someone giving their interpretations of events. They are recording of the actual events. The only exception is the first link, where the primary source (reachable from within the article) is in Arabic.

Shachar

Let's assume this post is real (the article suggests this is, at best, under dispute). So one lunatic condemns an entire nation in your eyes?

The amount of proof by example seen in these debates is saddening.

Shachar

Know that I don't think that the concept of "nation state" is dead? That I think that Jews have a right of self-determination in addition to the Palestinians?

And merely because I'm both Jewish and Israeli doesn't mean my explanation is wrong. Well, to most thinking people, at least. If you think it is incorrect, by all means, provide references. I'd have provided references myself, except I'm not sure which part of my description you have issues with. If it's either the focus on "Jewish people", or the acceptance of minority rights, I'd need to point you no further than Israel's declaration of independence. Both are very prominent.

Shachar

Seriously, you cannot see any other possible motive for Israel's actions other than sadistic hatred? Nothing? No other possible explanation?

Shachar

You're begging the question. Your comment only makes sense if you assume the very thing I'm questioning.

Shachar

I hear, between the lines, that you do not have either a spouse or children.

The more you age, the more moving becomes hard. When you're young and independent, it's great to move around, see the world. When you're a bit older, it's great that you can easilly have your kids see their grandparents, uncles, cousines. You begin to ask yourself what are the values your kids will be raised on, what language they are going to speak.

Maybe it's not important to you. That's fine. To each his own. This includes me, and most of the world.

As for a world with no limitation on immigration, I don't think it is the utopia you imagine it to be. Check out what's currently happening in Europe.

We grew up in a piece of the world where certain things seem self evident and obvious. As such, some start to question whether things can be any other way. They can. Democracy needs to be protected. Your personal freedom needs to be protected. Your safety does not happen all by itself. Absolute equality does not exist.

There is an proverb in Hebrew which translates to "don't spill the baby with the water". When striving for a better world, don't go so far that you've destroyed all that was good in the old one.

Shachar

Actually, he was a great Zionist supporter. What he rejected was an offer to be Israel's first president.

Shachar

I ache for all lives lost in this conflict. Every time I have to interrupt my daily routine (or my sleep) in order to run for shelter, every time I think about complaining about it, I know how much better I have it that my bomb shelter is an integral part of my apartment, where people in Gaza simply have none. Yes.

And none of this is an excuse to levy false accusations. This conflict, as you said, has gone on for almost a century. You arbitrarily decided to blame it all on Israel, and are using stronger and stronger rehtorics in order to do so. Havn't you considered stopping and wondering why these don't work? Why is it that so few Israelies see your point? Do you really believe we are all racist evil sadists? Or is it possible that we see your rehtorics for the bullshit they are?

I think you will agree with me that this conflict will not be resolved by pushing the Palestinians into submission. Why, then, do you think it can be resolved by pushing the Israelies to the same place? If this isn't genocide, why call it so? What purpose does it possibly serve? What purpose does calling Israel "apartheid" serve (just as easily proven wrong as "genocide" or "massacare")? What purpose does ignoring Hamas's decisions and responsibility for the safety of its own people serve? In what way does ignoring relevent and important facts bring the conflict's resolution closer?

The only purpose this serves is cleansing your own concience. You blame the obvious bully. You feel good with yourself. The world is fine.

Well, tough. I don't get to choose. I live here. This is my home. This is where my family and friends live. This is my country you're trashing, for no better reason than to feel better with yourself.

Fuck you!

Shachar

Canada gives you more points if you speak French. The USA requires that you speak English in order to get accepted. In fact, language is a factor for many of the countries you specify.

I will, however, concede a mistake on the immigration policy. It seems (preliminary, I'm still looking into it) that around 2005 the European union decided that's unethical, and has been forcing member states to forego those policies. Today these policies are much less evident than they were.

Which does not mean this is, necessarily, a good thing. I'll tell you what. Let's wait ten more years. If the European union is still around, the member states have not turned Muslim, and these rules are still in effect, let's talk again.

You also said this, however:

combined with the fact that the immigration control employed by Israel has not let any non-Jewish Chinese, Indian or African people gain full citizenship!

This is manifestly and provably wrong. About a decade ago the government decided to start stricter enforcement against illigal immigrant workers. That enforcement exposed a problem: many of those had children born in Israel, speaking Hebrew as their primary language, and being, for all intent and purposes, Israeli. The enforcement meant they were being extradicted to a country they have never even seen.

This resulted in a public outcry. The result is a law that was passed in 2006, that gave illegal residents citizenship under certain conditions. There are not many Indians who enjoyed this law, but you will find plenty of Chinese and African desent people who received citizenship.

There are few things of note here, all totally refuting your assertion of a racist Jew only state. The first is that they did not receive citizenship through some fluke or loophole. The law was changed in particular to allow them to receive it. The second was that this was not some lone legistlator's initiative. This was a result of a public outcry. This is what the country is about. I don't know anyone who thinks this undermines or contradict the Zionist aim.

Glad that you concede that Jewish is a racial trait, not a religious one and did not even bother to refute it.

Being Jewish isn't a racial trait. Discriminating based on it, however, is racist. I didn't think you'd be anal enough to care about this distinction, so I didn't bother making it.

Shachar

Rule of thumb: if you find you need to provide my end of the argument in order to win, you are probably wrong. e.g.:

The reason you won't agree to this is because Israel is a racist Jew only State and you don't want more non-Jews to be there because it would by definition signify the end of the Zionist enterprise.

No, that's not it at all. The Zionist enterprise was about creating a Jewish state, but that term does not mean what you think it means. It is not about creating a state only for Jewish (religion) people, but about creating a national home for the Jewish people. That phrasing is actually the subtitle of the Zionist charter.

Which means Israel is not, and was never meant to be, a Jews only state. If you want to claim otherwise, please provide references.

The reason I would not agree to an indiscriminate return is not because I don't like to see Arabs around (I wouldn't buy a home where I did were that the case). It's because that would turn Israel into an Arab state (i.e. - it would replace one nation's state with another). One look at the personal freedom, economics and personal safety track record of neighboring countries is enough, and that's the case where Arabs rule over Arabs. As a rule, they like me even less than they like themselves.

Your willingness to gamble away my property, my freedom and my life is touching, but I think I'm going to pass none the less.

How many non-Jewish Africans, Chinese and Indians were granted full Israeli Citizenship with equal rights, Israeli passports etc.

A nation state has every right to preserve its character through immigration control. All countries filter out immigrants, and Israel isn't even the only democracy to use religion as a criteria. Your insinuation that that's wrong needs citations.

Now you will want to claim that Jews are not a race and therefore Israel cannot be a racist state.

Strawman. I never made that argument. Next.

Shachar

You would like to live in a world where "nation state" is a dead concept. Regardless of whether I think this is a good aim or not, a simple look at the facts will show you it is not a practical aim.

There are very few states in the world which are not "nation states". Most of those are binational states or multi-national states. They don't fare very well. In the best case end of the spectrum you have Canada and Finland, where it sort-of works, but is very far from the ideal you're trying to paint. On the worst end of the spectrum you have Czechoslovakia and, in particular, Lebanon (which has spent about half of the past century in civil wars).

Then there are non-national states. America is, formally, one. A simple look at a dollar bill will show you just how much it isn't. While it did start out as immigrants' land, we now have an "American nationality", with typical religion, language, and a way of thought that is an American as apple pie.

The only non-national state I can think of which is successful in being one is Australia, in fact. It only does so by celebrating and enshrining the differences. This is something most people are not easily up to.

People tend to group around people who are like them. It's a human thing. I think it is pointless to fight it.

Shachar

Rockets fired since 2001. Blockade started in 2007.

What I wonder is, if the Palestinian have a time machine (which is the only explanation to this, as well as many other, rationalization of their actions), how come they are not rich enough to buy the allegedly pro-Israeli media?

Shachar

I always find the "genocide" mantra strange.

Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?

Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.

Shachar

I live in Israel, in an area which is inside the "green line" (i.e. - it was Israel since 1948). All around the town I live in are Arab cities, all of them also inside the green line, all of their inhabitants Israeli citizens with equal rights to me (though some missing obligations). If a two state solution is scheduled to go through (and unless "areas exchange" change that), all of those currently Israeli citizens are scheduled to remain so.

I suggest you get your facts straight when claiming separation on ethnicity. I am literally[1] holding my breath waiting for your apology for wrongly using "apartheid".

As for the area being small: I'm anxiously waiting to hear your proposed solution. I'm sure it is going to be enlightened, grounded on facts and peaceful.

Shachar

1 - Obviously, I'm not literally holding my breath. Since, however, I don't expect you to apologies either, the two parts of the sentence are equally true.

Not doing business in the US is not the same as deciding never to step foot in it, ever.

Shachar