The IDF starterd opreation "Pillar of Cloud" in Gaza (ended Nov 21 2012 23:00 GMT+2)

Niseg wrote:

- The IDF is escalating its strikes causing
more civilian casualties while killing
prominent members of Hamas which is
known to use the civilian population as
human shields.

That criticism is the pot meet kettle type since the IDF is known for using human shields as well. Of course they only use Palestinians for such things. They wouldn't dare use their own civilians as human shields, only those who they view as being beneath them.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Niseg wrote:

- The IDF is escalating its strikes causing
more civilian casualties while killing
prominent members of Hamas which is
known to use the civilian population as
human shields.

That criticism is the pot meet kettle type since the IDF is known for using human shields as well. Of course they only use Palestinians for such things. They wouldn't dare use their own civilians as human shields, only those who they view as being beneath them.

[Citation needed]

UBB code is kinda stupid; it'll figure out your website is out in the greater internet if you just have a www in front of it, but if you have anything else (like a news, natch) you need to put the http:// before the URL in the code, otherwise it links to GWJ in a weird way. I fixed it above so you can quote me to see an example.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Niseg wrote:

- The IDF is escalating its strikes causing
more civilian casualties while killing
prominent members of Hamas which is
known to use the civilian population as
human shields.

That criticism is the pot meet kettle type since the IDF is known for using human shields as well. Of course they only use Palestinians for such things. They wouldn't dare use their own civilians as human shields, only those who they view as being beneath them.

The IDF is using the Israeli population as human shields - they let them get hit by rockets while they sit back and relax at their bases. It's still not the IDF's fault - the government decides on military operations.

Neighbor Procedure is illegal and in 2010 soldiers were convicted of using it in Cast Lead but they got a very minor punishment. It was replaced by a more legal but deadlier procedure called "pressure cooker procedure". This method involves applying pressure on the guy that won't give up usually by tearing apart the building around him. As far as I read the results are usually fatal but not always and there are usually no civilians who are put at risk in the process.

The other war crime in Cast lead was a Soldier who stole a credit card but he was caught and returned the funds he stole. Goldstone also changed his mind two or three times about the report he wrote(considering the number of time he changes his mind I don't think he's that credible).

What I heard on the radio today is that the international law forbids intentional killing of civilians ( like what Assad is doing in Syria for the past two years ) but allow room for mistakes. If the military does all in its power to avoid civilian casualties it's usually not a prosecutable offense. The IDF is usually taking over Hamas radio band warning the civilians to get away from Hamas Militants and weapons. They also call residents of buildings before they demolish it.

Luckily this year the civilian population in Gaza is Paying attention to the warnings which kept the civilian casualties very low considering more than a 1000 military targets were hit.

Hamas is all about breaking international law - Its soldiers are not uniformed (illegal combatants), It usually target the civilian population and its operatives shoots from or near civilian buildings. They use civilian buildings as weapon storage and their leaders have children around them most of the time. Their objective is mainly to cause civilian casualties on both sides. It's still not only Hamas's fault. There are about 4 or 5 other terrorists organizations in Gaza that are out of control . It's not unheard of that the Islamic Jihad, an Iranian backed organization would kick out Hamas and take over the Gaza strip.

Soon the IDF will ran out of Air strike objective which will pave way for the ground assault. This will mean more casualties including civilians. They talked on the radio that most of the civilian casualties in Cast lead were killed during the ground assault. I'm not really sure why people are so afraid of a ground assault. In Cast lead we lost 10 soldiers and 3 of them died to friendly fire. A soldier's job is to protect his country and sometimes die doing it. Soldiers are better equipped to deal with threats than civilians who can only run with their children to bomb shelter and hope they won't suffer a direct hit from a Fajr 5 .

The fact that Israel intercepts most of what Hamas is shooting at our civilians doesn't make shooting rockets at civilians a lesser war crime.

Kraint wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
Niseg wrote:

- The IDF is escalating its strikes causing
more civilian casualties while killing
prominent members of Hamas which is
known to use the civilian population as
human shields.

That criticism is the pot meet kettle type since the IDF is known for using human shields as well. Of course they only use Palestinians for such things. They wouldn't dare use their own civilians as human shields, only those who they view as being beneath them.

[Citation needed]

BBC: Breaking silence on Gaza abuses
B'Tselem - Human Shields

There's a couple for you. Google it and you'll a lot more examples, including children being used as human shields by the IDF. The wikipedia article on Israel using human shields had plenty of citations as well.

As for the attitude of many of the human shield proponents (and Israel as well since it's said that they fund him), Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira has plenty of colorful quotes about doing so:

"Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by
nature" and should be killed in order to "curb
their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile
who has has violated one of the seven
commandments… there is nothing wrong with
the murder,"

"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

"Anything you do to keep the war tough is permissible, and obligatory according to the torah,"

"According to true Jewish values, your
lives come before those of the enemy,
whether he is a soldier or a civilian under
protection. Therefore, you are forbidden
from endangering your own life for the
sake of the enemy, not even for a
civilian,"

Edited to fix stupid forum code limitation. Thanks bnpederson.

I'd rather face conventional rocket fire than white phosphorous. But that's just me.

Niseg wrote:

Neighbor Procedure is illegal and in 2010 soldiers were convicted of using it in Cast Lead but they got a very minor punishment. It was replaced by a more legal but deadlier procedure called "pressure cooker procedure". This method involves applying pressure on the guy that won't give up usually by tearing apart the building around him. As far as I read the results are usually fatal but not always and there are usually no civilians who are put at risk in the process.

Yes, Israel "punished" a couple of its soldiers by demoting them after it was proven that they had used a 9 year old boy as a human shield. Is this what you define as an acceptable punishment for a war crime? To me it seems like a slap on the wrist for getting caught, not for the act itself.

Niseg wrote:

Goldstone also changed his mind two or three times about the report he wrote(considering the number of time he changes his mind I don't think he's that credible).

The UN is a bunch of liars? Is that seriously your argument? What about Israel refusing to take part in the investigation in the first place? After all, if they were truly interested in punishing the criminals on both sides then why not cooperate with the UN investigation? And what about Amnesty International and Breaking the Silence, are they all liars too?

Niseg wrote:

The fact that Israel intercepts most of what Hamas is shooting at our civilians doesn't make shooting rockets at civilians a lesser war crime.

No, but Israel being the aggressor and refusing to seriously prosecute its own war criminals does. If you want the world to see you as the good guys, then you need to act like it.

A few tips: don't schedule invasions before elections (it looks fishy), don't assassinate the leaders who are likely your best chance at peace, keep in mind that families were pushed from their homes, don't kill protesters, and perform all military operations squeaky clean (like a parolee, you have to work extra hard to combat your history).

Niseg wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I'd rather face conventional rocket fire than white phosphorous. But that's just me.

I serious doubt you'll want to face Anti personnel rockets with 20kg warheads.

Let's see; high chance of instant obliteration, or experience the very air I'm breathing ignite and burn me to death both outside and in?

I'll take the anti personnel rocket, thank you.

CannibalCrowley, while I suspect we are in relative agreement on the broader issues at hand be very careful defending the entire UN in regards to Israel (tip my hat to you, Kraint). Both Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon have criticized the UNHRC (Human rights council) for it particular focus on Israels transgressions and even Goldstone himself has pretty much distanced himself from the report in question. It seems as if the UNHRC has been hijacked by the Middle East and African block with China and Russia happy to let them. They then use it to push their own agenda and avoid criticisms of their own regimes. It's unfortunate but its very much seems to be the case.

The IDF are absolutely open to criticisms and not everyone in the UN is a anti-semite but on this one Niseg is right.

And Niseg, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Hamas are anywhere in the right. Let me state this clearly, they are in the wrong and no amount of perceived or actual injustices justify blindly firing rockets into civilian territory. However that doesn't make any action in contradiction automatically correct either. Its also patently obvious that it doesn't work either if your goal is for them to stop behaving badly.

Farscry wrote:
Niseg wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I'd rather face conventional rocket fire than white phosphorous. But that's just me.

I serious doubt you'll want to face Anti personnel rockets with 20kg warheads.

Let's see; high chance of instant obliteration, or experience the very air I'm breathing ignite and burn me to death both outside and in?

I'll take the anti personnel rocket, thank you.

Farscry, I understand what point you are making but remember this is Niseg's home and family we are talking about. Not just his country, region or some other abstract concept but his actual home. Yeah, if I had to choose, sure WP is nastier but I think I'd be pretty upset either way.

I will say this, for a guy in the middle of it right now, Niseg shows a great degree more patience than I would muster

Axon wrote:

I don't think anyone here is claiming that Hamas are anywhere in the right. Let me state this clearly, they are in the wrong and no amount of perceived or actual injustices justify blindly firing rockets into civilian territory. However that doesn't make any action in contradiction automatically correct either. Its also patently obvious that it doesn't work either if your goal is for them to stop behaving badly.

Yup. If anything, I expect better from Israel than from Palestine if only from the simple fact that Israel is the wealth and the power, and their military is actually protecting Israeli citizens and acting at the behest of a proper representative government. So when both sides commit atrocities, I am more disappointed and distressed by Israel than by Palestine.

Reflecting on the video posted by bnpederson I really do think that overall, death has ruled the Middle East. It seems that anyone who stays long enough ends up with a history which includes the results of murderous acts and dispossession, as well as an acceptance that such things are inevitable.

The worst thing for me is that the anger on all sides is understandable, but most of the fighting being done is by proxy. Every weapon is delivered with strings attached to it, yet the people are so blinded by anger that they accept the weapons and ignore the strings.

LouZiffer wrote:

Reflecting on the video posted by bnpederson I really do think that overall, death has ruled the Middle East. It seems that anyone who stays long enough ends up with a history which includes the results of murderous acts and dispossession, as well as an acceptance that such things are inevitable.

I don't accept that.

Any grouping of humans that stays long enough in one place ends up with a history much like that. The Middle East is referred to (with good reason) as the Cradle of Civilization.

The place with the longest continuous history of human civilization happens to have arguably the bloodiest history? Gee, color me shocked.

The Middle East has also had many of humankind's greatest civilizations and achievements. It goes with the territory of having such a long, continuous presence of humanity.

Europe hasn't fared significantly better on a violence per annum measurement over the course of its own history, I would expect. Nor anywhere else, probably.

In modern times, there's a whole slew of things that have contributed to the problems in the Middle East. This, too, will pass, and some other part of the world will inevitably become the new "problem region."

I'm with you, Farscry. Europe proves that the Middle East is neither to most violent region historically nor is it ever completely lost. Heck, Ireland and Britain are best buds these days.

It also proves how quickly people take stability and peace for granted. The concept that Europe states would slug it out seems completely preposterous now but it happened in our parents lifetime. Once people start buying luxury goods and comfortable lifestyles they do there utmost to avoid blowing it up

Farscry wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Reflecting on the video posted by bnpederson I really do think that overall, death has ruled the Middle East. It seems that anyone who stays long enough ends up with a history which includes the results of murderous acts and dispossession, as well as an acceptance that such things are inevitable.

I don't accept that.

Any grouping of humans that stays long enough in one place ends up with a history much like that.

It's the history paired with the point of view (acceptance) that I'm talking about. I haven't been there personally though, so I can only go by what I've learned from my mother's side of the family which lived in Lebanon when times were more peaceful and maintains ties there to this day.

EDIT: By the way, I don't find such things to be acceptable or inevitable. It's that attitude which keeps the conflicts going, and from what I gather it's common there. Nowhere have I stated that the Middle East is exceptional in this way either.

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant LouZiffer.

It saddens me how many Facebook friends are falling over each other to condemn Israel, going as far as to compare them to nazi's. This sick contest to ride the highest horse from our iPads in our comfy couch just gets me down.

Sorry, had to vent. Please keep this interesting conversation going folks

And stay safe Niseg and Tamron.

dejanzie wrote:

It saddens me how many Facebook friends are falling over each other to condemn Israel, going as far as to compare them to nazi's. This sick contest to ride the highest horse from our iPads in our comfy couch just gets me down.

Sorry, had to vent. Please keep this interesting conversation going folks

And stay safe Niseg and Tamron.

I made the mistake of reading reddit threads on the topic. The only upside to reading them was that I learned a new word, "Ziotard."

Also, fist-bump to Axon.

Kraint wrote:

I made the mistake of reading reddit threads on the topic. The only upside to reading them was that I learned a new word, "Ziotard."

Indicating those who favor a sovereign homeland for God's "very special" people?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I made the mistake of reading reddit threads on the topic. The only upside to reading them was that I learned a new word, "Ziotard."

Indicating those who favor a sovereign homeland for God's "very special" people?

It was directed at those who weren't advocating that Israel be burned to the ground, at this very instant, by the combined armies of the world. I'm guessing it is code for, "idiot who dares to disagree with my irrational level of hatred of Israel and probably Jews in general," or something similar.

Kraint wrote:

I'm guessing it is code for, "idiot who dares to disagree with my irrational level of hatred of Israel and probably Jews in general," or something similar.

Ah, the wonderful "if you disagree with anything Israel does you must be a secret anti-Semite" argument.

Farscry wrote:

I'd rather face conventional rocket fire than white phosphorous. But that's just me.

I serious doubt you'll want to face Anti personnel rockets with 20kg warheads. I think the rocket hit near this building:
IMAGE(http://www.haaretz.co.il/polopoly_fs/1.1867870.1353265784!/image/2317164653.jpg)

CannibalCrowley wrote:

Neighbor Procedure is illegal and in 2010 soldiers were convicted of using it in Cast Lead but they got a very minor punishment. It was replaced by a more legal but deadlier procedure called "pressure cooker procedure". This method involves applying pressure on the guy that won't give up usually by tearing apart the building around him. As far as I read the results are usually fatal but not always and there are usually no civilians who are put at risk in the process.

Yes, Israel "punished" a couple of its soldiers by demoting them after it was proven that they had used a 9 year old boy as a human shield. Is this what you define as an acceptable punishment for a war crime? To me it seems like a slap on the wrist for getting caught, not for the act itself.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

No, but Israel being the aggressor and refusing to seriously prosecute its own war criminals does. If you want the world to see you as the good guys, then you need to act like it.

This attack came after Gaza shot rockets daily . Maybe we waited too long to react but I guess the government decided that it's better for people to sit a week in a bomb shelter than get in and out of it daily.

Unfortunately our judicial system is more result oriented. If someone get killed they usually get a much more serious punishment but still the punishment for man slaughter in Israel is usually about 10 years in prison. For negligent killing you can even not get in jail. So putting some people at risk isn't considered such a serious crime. Other than that the criminal conviction rate in Israel is about 98% so everyone tries to get a plea bargain.

In Norway some guy killed 70+ people and got only 20 years in prison which looks like a 3 star hotel room . In the US people are usually punished more seriously. Israel doesn't ignore war crimes and punish people according to it's law. There are a few lawless countries where the execute civilians daily and they get away with it just fine. The IDF does all within its power to warn the civilian population but they are a victim of the terrorists as much as our civilians are. Hamas does not abide by international law or under any law. What is done in those situation is usually a war tribunal.

Hamas also does crime against Israeli law like murder ,endangering our civilians, property damage and what not. The Israeli prosecutors can file charges against non residents who do crime in the country or against our country. Some countries can even prosecute people who do crimes in other countries (repealed in most countries) . The world is still very political so countries do what in it's own interest and they generally don't want to stick its nose where it doesn't belong (unless of course it's the USA) .

The IDF is attacking military targets and is fighting against a terrorist organization who's known to use human shield. So far the number of civilian casualties is relatively low compared to the previous operation. After the ground operation will start this is going to change. My guess is that they'll capture or kill all combatants. They might give the keys over to Abu Mazen . Maybe Egypt would take over.

edit: fixed quote mess

Many wrote:

Stay safe Niseg and Tamron.

Speaking of which do you guys need any help? I have like zero money and live in Idaho so I doubt that I can provide shelter or money to get out of that area but hey if you can make it here I have lots of room. That and I can cook for an army of people on little amounts of money for food. Maybe we can help get them out of the area if need be. Maybe for a short amount of time, maybe for a long amount of time. It may not be much to save a couple of families from attacks and war but it's something.

OG_slinger wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I'm guessing it is code for, "idiot who dares to disagree with my irrational level of hatred of Israel and probably Jews in general," or something similar.

Ah, the wonderful "if you disagree with anything Israel does you must be a secret anti-Semite" argument.

Sounds more like, "If you agree with Isarael at all you must be an arab-hating Zionist monster who thinks genocide is too good for the Palestinians like the rest of them."

Crazy.

Mixolyde wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I'm guessing it is code for, "idiot who dares to disagree with my irrational level of hatred of Israel and probably Jews in general," or something similar.

Ah, the wonderful "if you disagree with anything Israel does you must be a secret anti-Semite" argument.

Sounds more like, "If you agree with Isarael at all you must be an arab-hating Zionist monster who thinks genocide is too good for the Palestinians like the rest of them."

Crazy.

Well, your viewpoint is partial and doesn't count, since you have been forever compromised by jewbies!

Kraint wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Kraint wrote:

I made the mistake of reading reddit threads on the topic. The only upside to reading them was that I learned a new word, "Ziotard."

Indicating those who favor a sovereign homeland for God's "very special" people?

It was directed at those who weren't advocating that Israel be burned to the ground, at this very instant, by the combined armies of the world. I'm guessing it is code for, "idiot who dares to disagree with my irrational level of hatred of Israel and probably Jews in general," or something similar.

Are we talking about Hamas ideology and Islamic antisemitism? Many people think islamic Anti semitism is rooted in Nazi ideology because Islam was never antisemitic the past while Christians have their fair share of antisemitic acts throughout history. Most point out the work of Haj Amin al-Husseini who was a good friend of Hitler.

I think Natan Sharansky is right in his article the 3D Test of Anti-Semitism which generally claim that most anti-Israel groups are mostly antisemitic because behavior and messages are racist in nature. They generally claim the Jews have no right to a sovereign state, they demonize Jews and also have different (double) standards for Israel compared to other nations.

plavonica wrote:
Many wrote:

Stay safe Niseg and Tamron.

Speaking of which do you guys need any help? I have like zero money and live in Idaho so I doubt that I can provide shelter or money to get out of that area but hey if you can make it here I have lots of room. That and I can cook for an army of people on little amounts of money for food. Maybe we can help get them out of the area if need be. Maybe for a short amount of time, maybe for a long amount of time. It may not be much to save a couple of families from attacks and war but it's something.

Thanks but I think people in Israel are doing fine. I wouldn't recommend going into Gaza because it's dangerous there.

I'm in range of Fajr 5s but the Hamas shoot them to Tel Aviv but we don't get rockets and I don't think Tamron is in range ( I made a mistake earlier - he's from Rosh ha-Ayin). The amount of physical damage is fairly low and Israel is pretty good and other than that we are so good at dealing with crisis situations we send aid to other countries (including Haiti, Turkey, Japan, Ghana recently ). Israel is pretty much an expert in everything that got to do with Post traumatic stress syndrome

I'm not sure if the is a fund to support Israel or the Palestinians. Going to Israel can cost 700-2000$ depending on the season. Hotels are generally very expensive but I can donate a couch if you really want to come (be warned I have cats).

Niseg wrote:

I think Natan Sharansky is right in his article the 3D Test of Anti-Semitism which generally claim that most anti-Israel groups are mostly antisemitic because behavior and messages are racist in nature. They generally claim the Jews have no right to a sovereign state, they demonize Jews and also have different (double) standards for Israel compared to other nations.

Those criteria make it hard to do anything except support Israel without being called an anti-Semite.

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

I do think that the Israel is trying to wipe out Palestine while trying hard not have their actions defined as genocide. It's pretty clear that they consider the entire area "theirs" and that they don't think the Palestinians currently living on it have any sort of claim to the land. Instead of herding them into death camps, they've surrounded them and prevent all but a token amount of foreign aid get past their blockade. They're not actively killing them, but they sure are putting them in a position to die easily. This is basically trying to invoke Godwin's law, despite the comparison not being as crazy as he thinks it is. The comparison is a little hyperbolic, but not as much as he claims it is.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

"Everyone else is doing it, why are you focusing on us?" is not a valid defense. I don't like it when China, Iran, Cuba, Syria, or Palestine commit war crimes either. Part of this is that we would like to expect better from Israel, so it's failures draw more attention than those that we expect to blatantly violate human rights. I know I'd be much less critical of Israel if they would try to be the better country instead of trying to win a brutality contest with Hamas. And if they'd stop spying on us.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.

No country has a fundamental right to exist. Every country has to fight for it (either physically or economically). I see no reason why Israel should be an exception.

I don't want anyone to think that I think Palestine or Hamas are a bunch of plucky underdogs either. I see justifications on both sides; I'm just tired of our default reaction being that we have to support Israel in everything it does, despite the obvious cost to ourselves. I'd really like for each side to recognize that the other has just as valid a claim to the location as they do, and figure out a way to share it.

Interestingly enough, I think my own position barely passes Sharansky's test. And even ardent supporters of Israel have to reluctantly agree that I am neither an anti-semite nor anti-Israel. They just don't like it and think it is a dangerous line of thought.

1) I agree Israel has a "right to exist" in the sense that all countries that do exist have a "right" so long as they have the will and the ability to defend it. This "right" is defined purely by existence. In that sense, North Korea, Iran, and Turkey have such rights. Conversely the Hmong, Basques, and Hopi don't have "rights" to independent homelands.

2) I don't think Israel is unique the measures it takes to ensure its citizens safety. I am not a big fan of racial or religious identity as a pseudo-requirement for political participation, but whatever floats their boat is fine with me. It is their country and however they want to run it is up to them. And if that means putting up indian reservations, they are hardly unique and, as an American, I am not in any position to throw stones.

That said....

I just don't see why any of that equates to either a moral or political obligation on my part, as an American, to extend unconditional support for a nation that, like so many other nations, acts in their own interests. There are very good reasons why Israelis don't vote in American elections, pay American taxes, or die in American uniforms: they aren't Americans. The converse: we aren't Israelis -- should be instructive to the policies we should adopt.

Unless someone can plainly articulate a compelling American interest for the unprecedented level of support we offer Israel, I will continue to advocate a policy of disengagement.

No country has a fundamental right to exist. Every country has to fight for it (either physically or economically). I see no reason why Israel should be an exception.

If this is true, then why would killing Palestinians on claimed land, using techniques used by other countries, be a problem? I think you've got a double standard here. You want to argue that they are doing the wrong things, but then you argue that they are doing it because the only way for a country to survive is by "any means necessary" - fighting for survival. When push comes to shove, the latter would seem to justify the former. Typically, the view is that when fighting for one's survival, as a person or a country, the gloves come off and there are no rules. I don't think you're making your point here with that addendum.

It might make more sense to accept that Israel is a part of the community of nations, the UN, and thus has an obligation to uphold civilized standards of conduct. Defaulting to "no country has a fundamental right to exist" throws other moral considerations out the window.

Robear wrote:
No country has a fundamental right to exist. Every country has to fight for it (either physically or economically). I see no reason why Israel should be an exception.

If this is true, then why would killing Palestinians on claimed land, using techniques used by other countries, be a problem? I think you've got a double standard here. You want to argue that they are doing the wrong things, but then you argue that they are doing it because the only way for a country to survive is by "any means necessary" - fighting for survival. When push comes to shove, the latter would seem to justify the former. Typically, the view is that when fighting for one's survival, as a person or a country, the gloves come off and there are no rules. I don't think you're making your point here with that addendum.

I suppose my response to the second "D" does read like I think Israel is wrong for fighting for it's existence, so I should clarify. I don't think Israel is wrong for fighting with Palestine over it's borders. I also don't think Palestine is right for fighting Israel. They both have valid reasons for fighting each other and can use whatever methods they want (though I'd prefer they settle it without fighting, I'll settle for them leaving us out of their fight). The things that I think are wrong are their feigned innocence, their decrying of fair comparisons, and their demand that we support them. Israel is trying to play the innocent victim that has done nothing to provoke any attacks, and act like the whole mess is Palestine's fault. If they want me to believe them, they need to show some actual restraint in their retaliations, and some compassion for Palestinian civilians. Since they continue to do horrible things to their enemy, they should not be surprised when people compare them to other countries that did similarly horrible things to their enemies. They should also not be surprised that countries that would normally be their allies don't want to be seen as condoning those horrible things.

Probably the biggest contention is that I don't agree that the land that their claim to the land is more valid than the Palestinian's claim, so I view them as fighting to expand their territory, not defending their existence. I do view Palestine as fighting for it's existence, so I'm slightly more sympathetic towards them (even though I fully acknowledge they're doing horrible things).