Another gem from the good Dr. Finkelstein"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. 21,000 casualties over a three and a month period. 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 ...