PS, Putin, Obi, if you're into SM, get a room. ;-)

False equivalence TMOW. Hamas threatens Israel about as much as Luxembourg threatens Germany.

"But if the threat of anti-semitism is the argument for bombing, then it can by definition never stop."

A group like the Westboro Baptist Church shouting Antisemitic shit (and all other sorts of bile towards other races) is no reason to bomb...they have no weapons, they can't hurt anyone physically, and they're not violating anyone's national sovereignty.

Once you 1. Acquire thousands of rockets and enough military-grade guns to field a guerrilla army, 2. Broadcast to millions of others that it's God's will to exterminate the Jews, and 3. Violate Israeli national sovereignty by digging tunnel after reinforced tunnel miles into Israel (no matter how you slice it, that IS a violation of their national sovereignty and that IS an act of war)...

Then the game changes.

"the main threat to the existence of Israel and the people living on both sides, are crazy right-wing groups that still deny people a right to exist, a right to their own self-determination, denies the right to a state."

I agree that right wing groups on both sides are the problem...

But I also think they keep one another in office. Hamas attacking Israel and Israel responding creates a culture where that far-right wing becomes more favorable to the people than a more liberal approach towards an enemy firing at you, or making threats of genocide, or putting up checkpoints, or tunneling into your territory.

That's again why I say Hamas is the problem and that, if the Palestinians really want to win this and achieve their aims, Hamas has to go...because not only does violence beget violence, but it keeps the party least likely to hear the Palestinians out and least likely to ever offer them a better deal in office.

I again point to MLK vs. Malcolm X here...

It wasn't the latter that convinced Congress and JFK/LBJ and millions of white Americans do something and give the Civil Rights Movement the mainstream power it needed to succeed...Malcolm X's violent approach towards whites didn't win over that white group and make them feel like this really WAS one side being unfairly discriminated against.

Think of it this way:

With Malcolm X/Hamas, the South/Israeli Right could/can always say "Look, whites attack blacks, but blacks attack whites, see BOTH sides are at fault...that's why we need segregation," or "Look, we attack them, they attack us, see, BOTH sides are at fault...that's why we need to blockade Gaza."

Hamas is sadly fulfilling that role, and thereby allowing even someone like you, TheMinisterOfWar, you say they're equal partners in this crime, rather than take the Palestinian side outright.

As a (presumably) white person, who would've won you over in the 1960s--a black militant advocating armed fighting between whites and blacks, or a black preacher saying what matters isn't the content of one's skin but the quality of their character?

I don't know about you, but speeches do more to win me over than do bullets...or, in the case of Hamas, rockets, tunnels, and promises of genocide.

"False equivalence TMOW. Hamas threatens Israel about as much as Luxembourg threatens Germany."

Next time Luxembourg kills 67 Germans and fires thousands of rockets at Munich, you can use that one...

Your claim is itself a false equivalence, Putin. Good job.

A ratio of what, 22+:1

If Israel didn't invade to annihilate Gaza they wouldn't have had casualties.

In the past decade+ Israel has had about 20 casualties from rocket fire that didn't involve an invasion of Gaza.

"I don't know about you, but speeches do more to win me over than do bullets."

But you're full of it since you already said Israel has all the leverage and Palestine should just capitulate. Stop pretending you're into non-violent resistance now. Why are the Palestinians obligated to engage in non-violence when Israel butchers them?

I think the equivalence in violent rhetoric and in denial of existence stands.

At the same time, the level of violence employed certainly is higher for Israel against Palestine, and while Hamas is stating their willingness to recognise Israel, it seems Likud is moving farther away.

@FineRedMist: "Judaism, quite some time ago, was a necessary precursor of Christianity and informed many of its beliefs."

IMO, this is actually critical to some of the emotional underpinnings of our U.S. foreign policy with relation to Israel. Christianity came *after* Judaism. Many Christians feel that their religion is therefore superior to Judaism. And guess what great monotheistic religion came after Christianity? That's right, again. Islam.

You'd better believe that many Muslims, especially Islamists, believe is it their destiny to rule the world. Moderates may not think they should necessarily rule politically or militarily, but they believe...*BELIEVE*...that Islam is not just the best religion out there, but it is an improvement upon Christianity because it sprung from that tradition.

This "superiority complex" explains why the U.S. can easily support Israel. Their numbers are small so they will never be an immediate threat. Our cultural and historical ties exist. Jews fled Europe and came to America during the first half of the 20th century for many reasons. We supported the creation of Israel from its earliest days. And the great Christian majority "we" of America are superior to Israel, so let's help out the little guy.

The ascendancy of Islam in the 21st century is really giving western political leaders fits for many deeper reasons than simple yet rational foreign policy interests. This contributes to why many can turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed in this war. Israel is our proxy for Christianity in the region because we cannot fathom the idea of truly supporting a power (Islam) that can overtake our own heritage (Christianity).

Unless of course they have something we want and need--petroleum.

Kuta, where have you been? If US foreign policy was guided by some kind of concern for Christianity vs Islam then we wouldn't have destroyed two secular governments in Iraq and Syria that protected Christians while bringing to power radical Islamists, and providing arms to radical Islamists in Syria. We wouldn't have supported Bosnian mujahadeen and the KLA in Kosovo who traffic in organs of their Christian victims. We wouldn't hold hands with the Wahhabist Saudis while expanding against and encircling Christian Russia (not to mention arming mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Chechnya). We wouldn't have been BFFs with Mubarak while he looked the other way as Christians got pummeled in Egypt. We wouldn't do everything we can to protect Turkey from any kind of accountability for how they treat Greeks and Armenians.

Islamists are America's allies because they crush secular progressivism throughout the region. Look at the region and tell me which regimes got ousted? All the ones that happened to protect religious minorities. Notice the Islamists never target Israel. Notice the ISIS are burning Palestinian flags. They're fighting on the same side. The Palestinians are nationalists. That's haram in Islamic circles. That's why the entire Arab League sat back and watched Gaza burn. They waited a week before they even held a meeting.

Everything you just said couldn't be more wrong.

I really didn't think this fight could possibly be worse when I woke up.

Provin me wrong, every day, thanks webDip...

"With Malcolm X/Hamas, the South/Israeli Right could/can always say "Look, whites attack blacks, but blacks attack whites, see BOTH sides are at fault...that's why we need segregation," or "Look, we attack them, they attack us, see, BOTH sides are at fault...that's why we need to blockade Gaza."

Except that's prescribing parity motivation and power to both sides which is unequivocally wrong. Malcom X's violence was a response to white racism and aggression against blacks in the same way attacks from Gaza are largely the result of Israeli policy.

"IMO, this is actually critical to some of the emotional underpinnings of our U.S. foreign policy with relation to Israel. Christianity came *after* Judaism. Many Christians feel that their religion is therefore superior to Judaism. And guess what great monotheistic religion came after Christianity? That's right, again. Islam."

Not really. Christianity, and particularly the evangelical side of it, sees Judaism as a chosen people even in their own Bible. Christian and Hebrew beliefs align along many points, but it'd be shallow to say the hardcore Christians who really concern themselves with Israel see themselves a superior

"You'd better believe that many Muslims, especially Islamists, believe is it their destiny to rule the world. Moderates may not think they should necessarily rule politically or militarily, but they believe...*BELIEVE*...that Islam is not just the best religion out there, but it is an improvement upon Christianity because it sprung from that tradition. "

You're attributing the ideas of a small regional sect to both a broader ethnicity AND religion which is ridiculous. The vast majority of practicing islamists are actually in South East Asia, and the extreme islamism sweeping the ME comes mainly from the Saudi sect of wahhabism. This is not the prevailing view among "most" Muslims and certainly not the second largest religion in the world

"The ascendancy of Islam in the 21st century is really giving western political leaders fits for many deeper reasons than simple yet rational foreign policy interests. This contributes to why many can turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed in this war. Israel is our proxy for Christianity in the region because we cannot fathom the idea of truly supporting a power (Islam) that can overtake our own heritage (Christianity)."

So why then does a Christian power back Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Qatar, among others?

"But you're full of it since you already said Israel has all the leverage and Palestine should just capitulate."

1. I said they should be realistic about the deal in terms of land their going to get--they're NOT going to get all of Israel, or likely even all the rest of the other territory at this point, and land swaps are probably inevitable on both sides--NOT capitulate. I know you have a hard time with nuanced views...or views that aren't simply contrary for the sake of it, but try to follow along if you're going to sling more bile.

2. I ask AGAIN why you, Mr. "Conquest is Peace" should even have a problem with Palestinians capitulating...YOU are the one who advocated conquest, not me...and unless you want to give a definition of conquest other than the one I cited, which makes explicit that it involves bloodshed, seizure, warfare, and death, then you being pro-Conquest is you being pro-death.

"Except that's prescribing parity motivation and power to both sides which is unequivocally wrong. Malcom X's violence was a response to white racism and aggression against blacks in the same way attacks from Gaza are largely the result of Israeli policy."

But in both cases, that violence was NOT the factor that ultimately won the day for that group of people trying to achieve change...

It was the pacifist MLK and NOT the violent Malcolm X that got not just blacks on board with the message, but millions of whites as well and, just as importantly, enough whites in Congress and the white House to actually get tangible, legal change, such as the Civil Rights Act--signed into law by a white President who probably wouldn't have done so had the movement been spearheaded by a militant instead of a preacher.

Ironically, it's the religious right and their equivalent of preachers that are part of the problem with Hamas and such groups--their militant wing doesn't allow for the kind of mainstream success within Israel that they need.

Again--Israel has the leverage in these talks, and that's not going away. The best way to get a FAIR deal from Israel, then, instead of having Israel just dictate its terms, is to win the hearts and minds of Israelis and make them do what millions of whites did in America--call for their own government to give a more equitable deal to the people facing inequality.

And guess how many hearts and minds in Israel Hamas and its militant strategy wins over?

What's more...Hamas has had 8 years to try now, and we've had 3 wars and zero progress since--you're not even willing to be open-minded to the idea that maybe another, non-violent war of ideologies and persuasion to persuade the Israeli people with words rather than rockets is the best strategy at this point...not even in the age of Facebook and Twitter, which have helped fuel revolutions in the region?

"Why are the Palestinians obligated to engage in non-violence when Israel butchers them?"

They're not obligated to do a damn thing, Putin--

But in case you haven't noticed, VIOLENT opposition of Israel ends with them losing, each time...for three straight wars now...thousands dead...

You think maybe, just MAYBE it's time for a different tactic?

You don't think that if violence has failed them three straight times now--not to mention how "well" it's served them pre-Hamas the past 67 years--

MAYBE trying a non-violent campaign en masse in the age of Twitter and social media, in the age where we just saw regime changes occur due to (at least at the outset) huge non-violent protests across the Arab world...

Given that those worked--at least insofar as actually achieving change, how good that change has been is another story--and that violence has just lead to more and more Palestinians dying...

I don't know, Putin. I guess I think Peace is Peace, rather than Conquest being Peace...especially when Hamas is incapable of Conquest anyway...

So maybe, while they're not obligated to change at all, and can go merrily on their way having war after war every few years until thousands and thousands more Palestinians die and we have this same discussion year after year, MAYBE it'd be a good idea to try a new tactic?

Oh, right. No. Of course not. That'd be silly.

That's actually been shown to be effective, and you hate that..."symbolic" acts are far more important than actually getting results, right?

Nuking Israel would solve everything. Good guys free from genocide. Bad guys incinerated. Zero downside.

Nuke maplebitch ( bad guys gone)

But maple, wouldn't the nuclear blast and fallout hurt Hamas too?

And you don't want THAT!

(Though I WOULD be curious how many would still fight over that small scrap of land if it were so utterly ruined and irradiated...)

@Jeff Kuta @Putin33

America has supported Islamists. America has supported dictators. America has supported popular sovereignty. There's no consistency to it.

The entire region is in such an unstable equilibrium all the time that it's impossible to take any action with predictable effect. In hindsight, of course, everything is wrong, and it gets characterized as someone's nefarious plan.

@obiwanobiwan

"MAYBE trying a non-violent campaign en masse in the age of Twitter and social media"
"them losing, each time...for three straight wars now...thousands dead..."

Don't get confused, a non-violent campaign is what *you* want. The people undertaking the violent resistance might have a different standard of success or failure than you do.

http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/57/36/b0643117855bef3eabbf6a760a8fc260-japan7.gif

"MAYBE trying a non-violent campaign en masse in the age of Twitter and social media, in the age where we just saw regime changes occur due to (at least at the outset) huge non-violent protests across the Arab world...

Given that those worked--at least insofar as actually achieving change, how good that change has been is another story--and that violence has just lead to more and more Palestinians dying..."

Not that this is going to happen thanks to things like Israeli hasbara and popular sentiment behind them. The IDF have a twitter account, Hamas doesn't.

And you're ignoring that non-violent protests have been tried in the past and haven't worked. The first intifada failed thanks to Israeli intervention, the unity government failed thanks to Israeli intervention, west bank protesters are shot (http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/israel-shooting-deaths-after-west-bank-protest-0), and Israeli generally doesn't treat protesters it captures very well (http://www.imemc.org/article/68776 )

Also obi, do you really not know what the islamic equivalent of a preacher is??

אני אוהב את טאקו בל! Wait guys are talking about islam now? Cool my dad's a shia muslim!

*you guys.

I'm ashamed to say that I understood that, but as far as I know there isn't a Taco Bell in Israel.

Ahha! There is in New york!

My question is how is there a name for taco bell in hebrew? Not alot of countries have one.

Most fast food restaurants, specifically the ones from the US, keep their English logo and name. Same goes for France and Germany.