I don't consider 'moral equivalence' a game to be played. I do consider moral relativism to be, well, immoral. Using your line of reasoning any terrorist organisation can easily justify any atrocity by claiming inequality of conflict.

I'm not 'finger-wagging' at anyone as that would be trivialising the death and destruction taking place. I am stating that you can't draw a moral or legal difference between the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government, no matter how much sympathy you have with the Palestinian cause or loathing for Israeli government actions.

Your demand for alternatives is pointless and, TBH, disingenuous. Throwing your hands up and saying 'well what else can they do' is just avoiding the issue. For a start they could limit themselves to military targets.

And lastly, I have not condemned the Palestinians. I have condemned the tactics used by both Hamas and the Israeli government.

Gestures aren’t worth lives. War is, in general, in pretty much all cases, senseless and moronic. To murder not as a consequence of war but as a gesture is unequivocally evil. What a sad, horrific, value on Israeli lives you must have to see it as acceptable that they are murdered as a gesture. No life is worth that little that it should be used simply to make a point. I honestly feel sorry for you that you see it like that.

You may think the Palestinians are ‘better’ because though they try and murder people, they are rubbish at it I think it’s the trying that’s the wrong part, the success of it is neither here nor there really. Competence isn’t really part of the equation. Once again, im not apologising for anyone.

Interesting reports:

[urlhttp://csis.org/publication/fighting-gaza-just-round-two-endless-series-future-clashes-and-battles[/url

[urlhttp://csis.org/publication/iran-israel-and-effects-nuclear-conflict-middle-east[/url
Open the pdf to see the full report with maps, charts and graphics.

I've wandered around the site, seems to be an interesting and sometimes grim resource.

Latest proposal for the West Bank?

[url=http://www.sott.net/article/254147-Israel-considers-racially-segregated-bus-lines-in-West-BankWelcome to 1950s Mississippi[/url

I really can't be bothered debating with these nonsensical fools who accuse the victims of being equally culpable as the aggressors. In their topsy-turvy, bubble-gum world ten million people could be obliterated by some invading, genocidal army but let half-a-dozen of them band together and exact revenge upon non-combatants living on OCCUPIED LAND and suddenly they, the ten million dead and anyone else lucky enough to be left alive are instantly [uEQUALLY AS BAD[/u as the aggressors.

I agree that in some cases it is very often difficult to identify the party at fault. But not here. The Palestinians were appallingly short-changed by Britain, the UN and later Israel when their lands were pulled from under their feet without representation. The surrounding Arab states didn't help immediately after and both they and the Israelis combined to deny what little land the Palestinians had left. After this point the responsibility is solely Israel's. They had no moral or legal right to the occupied territories and they should have withdrawn. Period. Instead they not only fortified their positions but embarked on a cynical policy of gradually appropriating Palestinian territory (usually the most irrigated and fertile) in sufficiently small amounts not to attract the politically unwelcome label of conquerors.

The Palestinians, after years of fruitless negotiations in which they couldn't win so much as an inch of concessions out of the Israelis (often they weren't even allowed to bring maps to the discussion table - as was the case years later at Oslo, the much-vaunted "peace process" Israelis claim Palestinians reneged on despite the fact that one of the ISRAELI chief negotiators later claimed even he wouldn't have signed ) , then - quite understandably - resorted to more direct and desperate forms of action. Do I agree with it? No. Do I understand it? [uAbsolutely. [/u

Kosh, Smokey and the rest of these armchair general Custers would have us believe that despite the litany of injustices listed above and in Norman Finkelstein's eloquent and morally forceful summation of the conflict, despite the appallingly one-sided casualty rate (which itself speaks volumes about the colossal disparity of men, materiel, foreign aid etc.) this AUTOMATICALLY makes them "just as bad" as the Israelis.

By their rationale - the Native Americans were "just as bad" as the conquering colonists. Ditto the Incas and the Mayans against Cortez and Pizarro. And any sane person would recognise this as phooey.

Carefeul Mugwump, because once Smokey sees this he will proceed to brow beat you into submission with response after response after response . Pretty much what all pro Israeli defenders do to all detractors.

Anyway, could be a great day at the UN for the Palestinians.

I see your comprehension skills are still taking second place to your penchant for rhetoric. Well done you.

Come back when you've actually managed to understand what people have been saying to you.

I think your interpretation is pretty close to the truth. The preferred outcome would be to sweep the Palestinians into the sea and hand their lands over to the settlers. Given the recent influx of large numbers of Jews from the former communist states the Israeli government is under extreme pressure to provide lebensraum.

The second best solution would be to force the Palestinians to accept the manageable (for the Israelis) governance of Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the West Bank). That said, the recent shenanigans south of the border may make Israel think twice.

Sans the above I think we'll see the continuation of expansion into Palestinian territories (especially those which are cultivatable or water bearing), a ratcheting up of the system of segregation none dare call precisely what it is - Apartheid, and ever more one-sided death tolls.

I want to know why Hillary thinks the UN recognition of a Palestinian state obstructs the path to a peaceful agreement between Israel and the palestinians? The fact is the only peaceful solution Israel wants is one in which there are no longer any Palestinians living anywhere in the region.

Isn't that also what the Palestinians want, in fact Hamas want the total annihilation of Israel. Lets have some balance.

Do keep up lad

And Netanyahu's response to overwhelming worldwide criticism (including, Britain - which is at least suggesting it might withdraw its ambassador - a rarity in itself) regarding YET MORE new settlements on Palestinian land?

[i"We will carry on building in Jerusalem and in all the places that are on the map of Israel's strategic interests."[/i

And there you have it.

Yes. That's why Hamas acknowledged the right of Israel to exist a number of years ago.

Yet see today's quote from Netanyahu – as posted by Mugwump.

Yet the destruction of Israel is still part of their charter.

Ah yes – charters.

Thankfully, Israel hasn't got a charter that states that it will spend decades actually pursuing a policy that means the destruction of any hope of a Palestine.

Even the UK government is in a slight tizz about this latest demonstration of an absolute lack of interest in a peaceful, two-state solution.

And launching hundreds of rockets at civilian areas is showing a commitment to a peaceful two state solution?

Yes, dear.

As I have said, I don’t have sympathy for murderers because they are incompetent murderers. Strangely you do.

No. You've simply made it clear that you sympathise with neo-fascist bullies, and condemn their victims for daring to put up any form of resistance.

I can imagine you being appalled by the behaviour of the Resistance or the ANC too. Indeed, that was pretty much Margaret Thatcher's line.

Who'd a thunk it, eh? SmokeyTA – son of Thatcher.

On the contrary you have sympathy for competent murderers.

But they are white; and essentially European.

Another 3,000 homes to be illegally built on Palestinian land.

Well indeed. But Smokey tells us that if the Palestinians dare object, that'll be 'anti-semetic'.

Of course.

And Smokey himself isn't a raving Nazi.

Also in that case if anyone on here says Israel are wrong then are we anti-semitic too ?