The metaphorical crowd cheers the mass murderer. can such a crowd be reasoned with? Should the effort be made at all?
The answer to both questions is obviously YES, but it does take two to tango. One can not advance a diplomatic process unilaterally. The other side must participate, at least to some degree, in good faith.
It should respond with roughly symmetric force.
Why should they? What could possibly be the motivation for a superior military force to restrict itself in order to suffer higher casualties, when fighting an enemy?
I'm not being cynical, I'm trying to understand your reasoning.
Have you, per chance, noted the disclaimer in your "impartial" reference?
"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)"
again, you fail to address my main argument - intent. your argument, to the best of my understanding, is as follows:
Since israel has invested in protecting it's populace, and actually built infrastructure to help limit and minimize child casualties, it is clearly in the wrong.
This kind of logic is hard to defend against - it assumes that the moral high ground is always on the side of the one suffered the most, never mind the actions taken by either side when trying to resolve the situation
For a quick reference, try the following from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
Inflammatory comments aside, the point was clearly stated - the terrorist is the one who advocates and acts towards maximizing civilian casualties.
In this context Israel fails this definition by not maximizing civilian casualties. There are many civilian deaths, but considering means available - it was a far cry from maximizing.
Hamas, OTOH, is by self admission a terrorist organization. They are proud of the fact.
I fail to see why you would argue against their self definition.
Israel has killed more civilians than hamas.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=5255
To date, I would say the numbers are about the same, difference being in intent - hamas is proud of targeting civilians (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/pij_e_spokesmen.htm), Israel trying to avoid it (http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-tries-to-minimize-civilian.html)
Shitty situation, but not as one sided as portrayed by you
"So, when Israel is attacked and they occupy the territory of the attacker, that is bad?"
No. But they'd better discern between government and a terrorist organization and between terrorists and unarmed civilians. They don't even try.
Patently false. either provide evidence or move along. Contrary evidence, BTW, is quite abundant - there has not been single instance of carpet bombing by Israel in current conflict. not a single one. OTOH, most of the Palestinian attacks up to the current offensive where directed at civilian population, and where only restricted by available weapons, not ethical or moral grounds.
"So when the allied forces occupied Germany after WWII that was wrong?"
No. Remember it was the German government the one lidering the war against other countries so occupation was granted till the time there could be reasonable confidence that a new non-beligerant government could be stablished.
Quite right. I'm glad you understand the Palestinian situation (I know you wrote 'German' but I fail to see where they differ in this instance).
"Was the liberation of Europe wrong too since we killed a lot of German children?"
Yes. The only reason things like carpet bombing Dresden haven't ended on an international tribunal on charges of war crimes is because all those international tribunals were controlled by the winning side that happened to be the same that commited such atrocity.
In the same vein Israeli leaders should be subjected to a tribunal on grounds of war crimes... if it were not for the USA aquitance.
Have you ever considered the practical implications of your suggestion? If I understand you correctly, a people should allow themselves to die, in order to uphold a moral high ground. please correct me if I misunderstood your statement.
"If Germany had kept fighting, with terror, the way the Arabs have after losing a war, Germany would still be occupied. Thankfully Germany is a place where reasonable thinking people live"
Probably. But if the allied forces would trashed away the German flag and the UN would tell the English "hey, most of you are of German origin, so we'll put the English flag here, we'll call it New England instead of Germany from now on and you are invited to come and live here" probably you'd have a different opinion of those "reasonable thinking people" nowadays.
To be honest, you lost me. Care to rephrase that in anything approaching a meaningful and preferably factually based way?
Fact - most flag thrashing occur on arab side. Burning Israel and US flags is common in Palestinian rallies. I have almost never saw the converse by the other side.
But again - feel free to rephrase. Your current statement's logic is very hard to follow - who are the germans, the english, new england, and the UN in your analogy?
interestingly enough that is precisely why Switzerland was chosen - another territory with no such thing as a totally independent border...
You might wish to remember that at the time HAMAS was keeping themselves busy planning and executing mass murders inside Israel sovereign territoy.
Than again, you might not.
Please provide facts twisted by Israeli propaganda, so we can judge the merit of your statements for ourselves.
Your point about a possible UN force safekeeping Gaza borders is valid, but somewhat impractical.
Not many nations relinquish their sovereignty easily, and any way you turn this - letting foreign troops operate in your land with autonomy (as UN troops are bound to) is tantamount to that. A political hot potato that could very well decide the coming elections.
Also, consider lebanon - prior to 1982 there was a UNIFIL force allegedly in control of the territory, and we all know how that ended.
Objections to a UN peacekeeping force in isralei public opinion would be hard to counter based on past performance.
This was modded up? for real?!?!?
I would have countered the factual fallacies one bye one, but unfortunately that would leave the parent post void and null.
Did you ever study history of the region, from an impartial POV? I'm just curious.
Actually, I'd be more curious to know who was the idiot who modded you up.
Disclaimer: Both sides want peace, and both sides think terror is the way to get it.
I agree with most of your post, however your disclaimer is patently false.
view what ehud barak offered arafat in exchange for peace, if you don't believe me.
don't rely on propaganda - consider what each side actually did.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html
Thanks, I needed that.
Was beginning to worry Slashdot was turning into a political forum...
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
