Palestinians form human shield to protect home from Israeli air strike

... maybe it would be worth considering whether all Israeli targets are terrorists, or are just branded that by Israel so that it can promote its own agenda.

Absolutely!

Israel absolutely did the right thing. Israel is not a state that kills civilians on purpose, and this upholds that principle.

I certainly don't agree with that. They just hold back because they can't afford any more criticism from the international community. And yet, Olmert has just ordered the assassination of Palestinian politicians. How cowardly.

But maybe they should save a few Palestinian lives — just in case!

Oh hey Keld, haven't seen you around in a while. What I want to know is how Israel benefits from "killing Palestinian civilians" as you say.

You'll have to direct that question to the leaders of the Zionist regime, Jodo. Not even the religious leaders have any moral scruples about killing innocent civilians:

"From an ethical point of view, there would have been no problem to hit the building, even with all the people there. Their presence there was part of the war against us. From a practical/diplomatic standpoint, of course, we have to measure our steps carefully."

That's right. Blow up them terrorists. I mean, it's not like they have any rights to be considered in this case. Israel clearly has the legal authority to declare specific houses are going to be blown up and to order Palestinians to not stand around in their streets.

Wait a minute... ok I'm fuzzy on how they have that authority. But I'm in favor of blowing people up some more. Israel will only have peace when they've killed every Palestinian, and then there will be much rejoicing.

Yeah, let's get over with it once and for all. Why not use some more cluster bombs, since all Palestinians are now regarded terrorists. Or maybe even some nukes...

Yes, I'm a pacifist, but it's a more humane way than the current slow-motion genocide. And I agree with Brian on this:

Israel will only have peace when they've killed every Palestinian...

It's an illusion to think that Israel will ever let the Palestinians have an independent state.

I disagree with your agressive approaches.

I find no evidence for that. For example, you stated above that any Palestinians who interfered with your desire to kill whosoever you want should be killed too.

Ah right. It's not all Palestinians who are terrorists. It's just this group of people standing around in the street. You would do well to notice how low you've set the bar. Standing in the street is now sufficient to get you labelled a terrorist.

I simply did not say that.

Forgive me for condensing your argument into a single sentence. First, you objected because Palestinians acted as human shields for a building the IDF planned to bomb, then you stated that they should be killed for doing so. I understand that logic is not your strong suit, but that is an argument that boils down to the sentence I wrote. You have consistently made the same argument in your rhetorical attacks on the Palestinians.

It's an ugly argument, so I understand why you object to having it stripped bare for examination.

It seems like you guys have nothing better to do than try and twist the words I say and the contexts in which I say them in order to project onto me an image of barbarity.

You do a fine job of it yourself. No twisting needed.

If they want to be martyrs, who are we to get in their way?

Standing in the street is now sufficient to get you labelled a terrorist.

You misinterpret Yaakov. Objecting to being robbed and murdered is what gets you labeled a terrorist, not standing in the street.

Well you see Yaakov, I would normally label someone a terrorist when they go out and kill innocent people. That's pretty much required for my definition of being a terrorist. No killing = not a terrorist. Your definition of being a terrorist does not require that you actually kill people or inflict terror at all. That is setting the bar very low.

Khaled Meshal doesn't go out and kill people. He lives a relatively comfortable life in Damascus, where he is the leader of Hamas and orders others to go out an kill. Terrorist or no, Brian?

Ehud Olmert doesn't go out and kill people. He lives a relatively comfortable life in Tel Aviv, where he is the leader of the Israeli government and orders others to go out and kill. Terrorist or no?

Killing someone and ordering it done are morally equivalent in my book. Terrorist.

Peaceful non-violent resistance against an aggressive force from your neighbor and killing people are not morally equivalent in my book. Not terrorist.

Suppose a murderer comes to your house, and you help him evade the police? Somewhere in between murderer and innocent, surely?

So you're saying that Israel is the police here? Not really. I'm not aware of any legal authority Israel has to blow up specific houses in Palestine.

The situation is more akin to a feud, it's just tit for tat killing with no legal basis on either side. If a Hatfield comes to your house and you help him evade a McCoy, are you then guilty of the murders that the Hatfields may have committed? I wouldn't say so.

Interesting analogy, but Israel is acting in self defense (whether rightfully or indiscriminately). They are a legitimate authority with a right to self defense. I'd say my analogy comes closer.

Palestine can say they're acting in self defense as well. Especially in this case, all they did was gather up a group of civilians to try to protect a house. Israel is a legitimate authority - in Israel. They don't have any legal authority to say "we're blowing up the house at XYZ because we're suspicious of it". Any more than any of Israel's neighbors have the legal right to do that to Israel.

I honestly do not know what aspects of international law do or should govern a state fighting a quasi-state like neighbor whose 'government' won't do anything to stop terrorist attacks. This is pretty much an unprecedented situation.

The core issues, as contained in resolutions passed before 1967, remain the Palestinian refugee problem, the status of Jerusalem, and the location of Israel's boundaries. These are the basic issues. They spring from 1948, not 1967.

The early U.N. resolutions call for Israel to repatriate or compensate the original 750,000 refugees of 1948-9 and to renounce Jerusalem as its capital and regard it as a corpus separatum, an international city dominated by neither Arab nor Israeli. (The U. S. position on Jerusalem is slightly different and, not surprisingly, closer to Israel's. It says Jerusalem should not be a divided city and its final status should be decided by the parties.) Finally, the original U.N. partition of Palestine awarded Israel an area only about three-quarters of its current official size. Israel's increase was gained at the expense of the Palestinians in the earlier conquests of 1948.

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

(link)

Israel and the law just confound me. It claims legitimacy based on some UN resolutions, and feels free to ignore 3 score others. They've arrested members of the elected government of Palestine, but keep postponing trials because they're trying to drum up charges they think will stick. Whatever your opinion on Israel, I cannot buy them as "the police" just out enforcing the law, because that's not what they do, as evidenced by all the UN resolutions against them which they ignore.

Palestine can say they're acting in self defense as well.

Well, they do, and I wouldn't completely dismiss that, but I think it's a lot harder to make the claim where you're specifically targetting civilians. And you're right that the situation is a difficult one to understand in terms of international law, but every nation has a right to defend itself against aggression, right? If the PA were more capable of doing so, it would be easy to say that Israel's defense should take the form of allowing the PA to enforce its rightful monopoly on force. But with the PA incapable, that doesn't remove Israel's right to defend itself.

I'd caution you against using the number of UN resolutions against Israel to make any claim. The fifty-seven members of the Organization of the Islamic Conferences vote as a bloc, together with several allied dictatorships, to force lots of resolutions against Israel, which is only one country with relatively few allies. Their reasons include simple antisemitism, but also to distract attention away from their own problems. In the 70s, they were helped tremendously by an official anti-Zionist stance in the Soviet Union fueled by cold war politics (based on US or USSR alliances in the world's biggest oil producing area) as much as by antisemitism. During that time, structures were put in place to pretty much autogenerate periodic anti-Israel resolutions. The number of resolutions has more to do with that bias than anything else.

But, also consider (getting back on topic), that Israel's policies of assassination and attacking from the air are viewed in Israel as alternatives to military operations to arrest terrorists, which would require urban warfare and much higher civilian casualties.

Israel is acting in self defense (whether rightfully or indiscriminately).

When you steal someone's property and then kill them, that isn't self-defense.

Yaakov, you live in Israel. Are you really so ignorant of the history of that country? Do I have to write up the history of its founding every time someone tries to claim that Israelis killing Palestinians is an act of self-defense, rather than armed robbery?

don't worry Jimmy, i already took care of that. it's somewhere here... buried amidst all the BS.

Heres a question: Is Palestine a sovereign country?

If so: Do they not have the duty and responsibility to safeguard their borders and keep their citizens and members of their government from attacking other sovereign nations? That would be a yes. Therefore, any attack on Israel, if Palestine is a sovereign nation, is an act of war. Therefore, Israel would be justified in taking steps necessary to protecting itself.

If not: Someone's gotta be in charge. Anarchy clearly doesn't work. What happened in Gaza? "Militants" attacked Israel after Israel had withdrawn entirely from Gaza. Israel seems to be the only sovereign nation interested in the area. Since Israel is in charge, they do have the right to enforce the laws and suppress an insurrection as they see fit. I don't necessarily agree with all of their methods, but, in general, Israel has the right to do what it does.

A recent study (I can't find it. Figures.) showed that 69% of all West Bank settlements are on land that no one had title to before the settlement was built. I'm sorry, Yaakov, but I do support Israel withdrawing, forcefully if necessary, from the remaining 31%. I truly hope that your yishuv is one of the 69% that gets to stay.

Regarding the 69%, how can the land be "stolen" if no one lived there beforehand? There has never been a Palestine existing as a sovereign, independent nation. Before 1967, it was part of Jordan, then belonged to Britain and before that the Ottoman Empire.

This is probably the study you're talking about. That land was privately owned by the Palestinians, and Israel has, of course, no right to steal that land.

how can the land be "stolen" if no one lived there beforehand?

That old lie, debunked almost as soon as it was told: "a land without people for the people without a land." If no one lived there before, where the hell did the Palestinian refugees come from?

As far as Palestinian sovereignty goes, Israel is an occupying power, and is in violation of many of the international laws governing occupation. The settlements are the most obvious example.

Since Israel left Gaza, they are no longer in occupation, and therefore are not the defacto police. They have never ceased their acts of war against Gaza, including seizure of Palestinian funds and assassinations, so they are not acting in self-defense, they are simply continuing their century-long war against the inhabitants of Palestine.

This is probably the study you're talking about. That land was privately owned by the Palestinians, and Israel has, of course, no right to steal that land.

Yes. Well, if the owners of the land have given up title in some way, if I understand the law correctly, the land goes to the state, in this case, Israel, AFAIK. Of course, this is probably a very small part of the 31%.

If no one lived there before

I didn't say that.

It sure is easy to win arguments against strawmen, isn't it?

yes, they "gave up" the title when the tanks rolled in. so you are right, since they chose to live instead of getting blasted, the land is Israel's now. end of argument.

Might makes right. I don't know why people are so scared of that concept. Whichever side of the conflict (probably Israel) succeeds in blasting the other side into submission will have plenty of time to spin the situation later to appear acceptable and justified and legal; the victors write the history books after all. I mean, how often is the genocide against the native population committed by the US ever brought up in our history books? Pretty much never.

i feel it to be our duty to improve, not only as a nation, but as a civilization, and try and change this sad fact. i am a political scientist and agree with you 100% that it is in fact the past and present situation of might makes right. but it is understood to be a wrong and reprehensible element of society, and one that is slowly but surely changing.

if we held your attitude about medicine, then we would say that if you got sick you die. in travel, since people don't have wings we would never fly... i think you get my point.

the information revolution is changing the way information is gathered and disseminated, and we can't just take the archaic attitude of the past into the future. humans evolve. it's ok for maybe monkey's to live their lives according to the alpha male (country?) structure, but we know better.

the land goes to the state, in this case, Israel

What makes Israel "the state" in the West Bank?

What makes Israel "the state" in the West Bank?

The absence of any other ruling body.

The fact that Israel conquered the land and still has military control over it.

The fact that the land used to belong to Jordan, now belongs to Israel and Israel has never given it up to any other governmental body.

all of the points you just made confirm israel to be an occupied territory. it is therefore the right of the palestinians to resist and fight the invading force.

I would add that the role of "conquering force" denies Israel and Israelis the claim to self-defense. The Palestinians are acting in self-defense.

all of the points you just made confirm israel to be an occupied territory.

Israel is NOT an occupied territory. The points I made do not apply to Israel, proper. The West Bank is, no one is denying that.

Who would the land belong to if Israel didn't take control of it? The PA wasn't even around after the Six-day war.

Jimmy, Babar, what do you think would happen if Israel left the West Bank right now? A happy, prosperous Palestine?

I don't think so. There is already so much infighting, I would bet that there would be more Palestinians dead after Israel left.

What makes Israel "the state" in the West Bank?

The fact that Israel conquered the land and still has military control over it.

Might makes right. Quite simple.

Who would the land belong to if Israel didn't take control of it?

Who would control your wallet if a mugger didn't take control of it?

I think the question of property has been addressed by Jimmy above.

As far as the infighting goes, you need to study the history and trends of the occupation first. they've been united for hundreds of years, living and prospering. if in the 2nd intifada (last decade or 2) they are getting a bit anxious about failed prospects of getting a home, you need to understand that they will side with anyone who promises progress.

If Israel left the West Bank right now, they would probably roll the tanks back in after about 1 week... call it a hunch. or wait, call it history.

PLO? Are we still living in the 1970's?

Who would control your wallet if a mugger didn't take control of it?

You. Duh.

However, that is a bad analogy, considering Palestine is not a single object that you can put in your pocket. You are a single-minded body. "Palestinians" are not a single-minded body. There isn't much of a Palestinian government to speak of to take control of the area. What title do the Palestinians, as a group, have to the land that no one specific person controls? The fact that they lived nearby? So do Israelis, only the Israelis now live on the land.

I suppose the solution to the problem is to make the Israelis move off the land the live on in order to give it to Palestinians who never actually lived there. (That doesn't apply to the land to which title is held by Palestinians, as I said above, Israel should move the settlements off that land. Preferably taking all the stuff the Israelis built there, considering the fate of the houses and greenhouses left in Gaza.)

after it is converted by Hamas and PLO into a staging ground for attacks on every Israeli civilian population and industrial center...call it a hunch. or wait, call it history.

How about if we call it what it really is, a self-serving inversion of history.

Preferably taking all the stuff the Israelis built there, considering the fate of the houses and greenhouses left in Gaza.

Yes, let's consider them. Demolition of homes in Ganim and Kadim underway

At about 10:30am on Tuesday, Israeli troops began to bulldoze the empty homes of the residents of the northern Samaria communities of Ganim and Kadim, who had left voluntarily last week before the army could evict them. The IDF has already demolished buildings in 13 of 20 communities in Gaza, all of which have been evacuated.

No doubt you were honestly unaware that the settlements were maliciously destroyed after the settlers had evacuated. I hope this opens your eyes just a bit.

Your continued attempts to claim that Palestinians have no claim to or right of sovereignty over their land are just as ill-informed. If you rob 700,000 people of their homes, that is not any less of an offense than robbing one person of his wallet.

Yes, let's consider them. Demolition of homes in Ganim and Kadim underway

So what, Jimmy?

I was advocating destroying the settlements, so, I don't see your point.

Some Palestinians definately did destroy greenhouses, etc. Either that or a there is some sort of conspiracy that includes these sources: WikiNews, and MidEastWeb.

Your continued attempts to claim that Palestinians have no claim to or right of sovereignty over their land are just as ill-informed.

What makes it "their land"? The fact that they live near it and the British decided to group that land with where they lived?

If there is land where no one lives and no government has control over the land, it is pretty much up for grabs.

the thing is, it's not "up for grabs" anywhere on earth. that wasn't a well thought-out statement. the Native Americans didn't have deeds to "their" land either, so would you call that "up for grabs"??

plus it appears there's a some mischief going on by Israel in building these settlements (shocker, i know...). i found an article i posted here that discusses how 40% or more of the land they are building settlements on is actually privately held.

If the land is not being used by the Native Americans, then, yes, it is "up for grabs". Just living near land doesn't make you the owner...

plus it appears there's a some mischief going on by Israel in building these settlements (shocker, i know...). i found an article i posted here that discusses how 40% or more of the land they are building settlements on is actually privately held.

Yeah, I know.

That's why I think Israel should GTFO (Get the @!$%# Out) of those areas, about, well, now.

What makes it "their land"? The fact that they live near it

If Israeli settlers want to live in the West Bank, they need to accept Palestinian law and Palestinian sovereignty, just as Americans who live in Mexico accept Mexican law and sovereignty. Even if no Mexican lives on or has title to a particular piece of Mexican territory, it is still Mexican.

Some Palestinians definately did destroy greenhouses, etc. Either that or a there is some sort of conspiracy that includes these sources: WikiNews, and MidEastWeb.

I love your jump from "one third of the hothouses at least temporarily unusable" to Preferably taking all the stuff the Israelis built there, considering the fate of the houses and greenhouses left in Gaza.

Notice that the greenhouses that were left intact by the IDF had been "purchased by a group of Jewish-American donors and given to the Palestinian government to encourage economic development." They weren't left behind out of any sort of good will.

Notice that the greenhouses that were left intact by the IDF had been "purchased by a group of Jewish-American donors and given to the Palestinian government to encourage economic development." They weren't left behind out of any sort of good will.

Read that again. I can certainly see some good will there. For one, Jewish-American donors didn't have to buy the greenhouses in order to give them to the Palestinians. Also, Israel didn't have to sell the greenhouses to the "Jewish-American donors" in order to have them saved.

I love your jump from "one third of the hothouses at least temporarily unusable" to Preferably taking all the stuff the Israelis built there, considering the fate of the houses and greenhouses left in Gaza.

Well, if the stuff is going to be ruined and looted, the Israelis might as well take it with them when they leave.

If the supplies are going to be used correctly for the Palestinians to better themselves, then leave the stuff.

If the local pawn shops are going to be doing a brisk business in greenhouse-supplies, then Israel should just take the stuff.

And don't bother mentioning that the arrangement for the greenhouses was worked out between Israel and the PA in advance.

Read that again. I can certainly see some good will there. For one, Jewish-American donors didn't have to buy the greenhouses in order to give them to the Palestinians.

The good will was on the part of those donors, not on the part of the IDF. Unless you think of all Jews as one monolithic bloc?

Your mental processes are fascinating:

one third of the hothouses at least temporarily unusable--->the stuff is going to be ruined and looted--->Israel should just take the stuff.

The good will was on the part of those donors, not on the part of the IDF. Unless you think of all Jews as one monolithic bloc?

You didn't specify on whose part you didn't see any good will. Also, the IDF didn't have to accept the donors bid to buy the buildings - it could have destroyed or moved them.

one third of the hothouses at least temporarily unusable--->the stuff is going to be ruined and looted--->Israel should just take the stuff.

Better that it be used than ruined. It's Israel's stuff to begin with, I don't see why its wrong for Israel to take it. Or maybe the fact that it was near Palestinians makes it their property now?

And this is exactly what the horror of the situation is. Eventually there will be no innocent bystanders. This is a process which unendingly expands, drawing all of those around it into taking one stand or another side or another, until everyone is involved in an unending cycle of violence.

Agreed. Which is why Israel has pulled back from that.

Sadly, nothing will make the Palestinians pull back. They'll keep firing their missiles whatever they are threatened with.

True, but many of them actively support the missile attacks on civilians to the point they are prepared to act as human shields for the missile-firers. They know exactly what they're doing.

Of course you can't just say they're all terrorists so it's OK to kill them all, and they know the IDF won't do that so their tactic has worked, but please don't make out these people aren't 100% behind missiles being fired at residential towns and schools. They are, and they would cheer if Israelis got killed.

Really? All of them, you know that? Perhaps there are a few in the crowd who regret all the destruction, who wish nobody would die, but are prepared to make a stand to prevent the destruction coming in at that moment?

Do you know that none felt that way?

I am making out that these people aren't 100% behind missiles being fired at residential towns and schools.

Are some of them? I'm positive some are. All of them? I'm absolutely positively that not all of them are, no population ever achieves that degree of consensus. If they have somehow achieved that degree of consensus, I wonder how much work that took on the part of the Israelis.

I'm sick of hearing this sort of "lets sweep everyone into one great mass" thinking, which exists in order to justify the sort of atrocities that are going on now. Hasn't this mess deteriorated far enough yet for people to figure that it will continue to deteriorate in just this manner if the present course is taken?

should Israel disregard the fact that average Palestinians are brainwashed?

The poor brainwashed fools actually believe that Zionists drove them out of their homes and have kept them in misery and under threat of death for half a century. How can they believe such foolish things, when it is so obvious that G-d gave Israel to the Jews, and no one has any right to stand in the way of the Jewish nation?

Consider American history. One of our most celebrated heroes was Nathan Hale, who said "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." Then there was Patrick Henry, with "Give me liberty, or give me death." Or how about heroes of the Alamo, who fought to the death?

But perhaps if the Palestinians had hope for a decent life, suicide wouldn't be so attractive?

That's not what you are saying?

If they want to be martyrs, who are we to get in their way?

Yes, you demonize them as terrorists (even though YOU came to THEIR home in order to steal it), but your essential message is that you (collectively) should have the right to kill anyone who interferes with your desire to take what they have.

Last I heard, most of the civilized society supports the lone man who stood up to a column of tanks in Tiananmen.

This is, even though I'm usually pro-Israel, a very similar situation.

"They wanna stand up against us? F--- 'em!" is the only vibe I'm getting from you, Yaakov. Your "If they want to be martyrs, who are we to get in their way?" stands up only in the mind of a person who already demonizes Palestinians wholesale. What if I said "Fred wants to commit suicide, who am I to not facilitate that?" You might just endorse that less. Then again, maybe not.

"Civilians want to protect people we wanna vaporize? F--- 'em." is not the way any marginally intelligent person even wants to begin to be associated with. Your allegiance to all that Israel does is blinding you.

Frankly, I truly hope that the quoted line ("If they want to be martyrs, who are we to get in their way?")was an offhand and insufficiently thought-out quip. I don't want to believe that you are entirely serious in your glibness, as you would need to dehumanize all Palestinian civilians who stand against Israel to do so. I hope you're not doing that.

Yaakov, fair enough.

But, I'm going to echo sentiments previously expressed in this discussion, that automatically labeling people who form human shields around military targets as enemy combatants -- to be treated in the same manner as the terrorists they sympathize with -- is, at best, treading in very murky waters.

Being a resident of the US, I guess I'm a little averse to the idea of declaring a previously civilian person an "enemy combatant" in light of President Bush's trigger-happy legislation.

Yaakov: when you kill people you have robbed, because they are trying to defend themselves with the poor weapons they have at their disposal, you are not acting in self-defense, you are simply continuing your career of crime. Calling them terrorists because they make an effort to prevent your terror is simply lying. I suppose that is a small crime when you've already committed ones that are so much worse, but it's still a crime.

you really have no idea about whats going on there, do you?

...tanks and f-16's in a conventional fight against home-made rockets?... yeah, sounds about even.

i encourage you to look deeper than the headlines for this one. it is anything but conventional. you will then be able to grasp the complexities of the situation.

They knew that the target (a senior terrorist in charge of the missile operation) was in the building. What is the point of telling him that you are targetting him?

Terror.

guess it is fine for Michael Tyson to punch Naomi Campbell then.

Only if he says that God said her purse was really his.

...tanks and f-16's in a conventional fight against home-made rockets?... yeah, sounds about even.

i encourage you to look deeper than the headlines for this one. it is anything but conventional. you will then be able to grasp the complexities of the situation.

Do I have to point out that it is not a concern if one country is underdeveloped than another. You've got to ask yourself WHY is the underdeveloped country underdeveloped. Perhaps in this case we might say a lack of peace for over a thousand years or more, exclusion, and generally unaccepting of the changes the world has undergone in many area has kept a nation underdeveloped. I find no reason to fault or call foul on Israel because they jumped on the technological ball before someone else. With that logic, anyone the US fights, by default is being bullied because we have better weapon technology than 100% of the world 90% of the time.

Disallowing the use of available technology simply because the opposing force is not privy to using the same technology is... pretty stupid on both a tactical and strategic level. The object of war is to win. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, while I, in a way agree that the notification given to targets was tactically stupid, it is humane. It gives lees chance for the enemy to call foul when Israel can say "hey, we told you". Did Japan call foul when we dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nope - because we told them we were coming. It was Japan that did not listen, so as far as I'm concerned, if people flock to protect their homes by using living flesh against explosives and high powered guns, then... who's stupid.

We are past the age of chivalry, where knights and swordsman duelled like gentlemen. There is no snuff box, and white gloves; no 10 paces, turn and fire. If people believe that we don't need to be an animal to fight war, then why is no one condemning the tactics of terrorists, like dressing like civilians - oh wait, they don't have technology so I guess its okay for them to be more animalistic about their fighting... I see...

You'd think by now, that when Israel says "we're coming" - they mean it.

Maybe the best thing is two thirty foot walls, 100 feet a part - anyone crosses between fences are ahot by either side... and.. if you want to put a religious spin on it... I'd think if God wanted someone to have that land - they'd be in it right now.

wow... i'm speechless...

you REALLY actually don't know what the conflict is. although it was a nice rant, i'm sorry to tell you it was all for naught.

allow me to explain. i get the feeling that you think that Palestine is a country, and Israel is a country, with a shared border. this is not the case. the chunk of land known as Israel used to go by the name of Palestine. then the Brit's did the dumbest thing and wrote the Belfour Declaration, and shipped all European Jews to Palestine and said they could have it. the Palestinians were quite surprised about this and really didn't have any say (as it was formerly a colony known as the Palestinian Mandate). FYI, France did something similar just up north to Syria and carved out Lebanon (yes, it is an artificial state). so as you can see, on the way out of the MidEast, the european powers left a nice little parting gift of decades of instability. the Jews that came over from Europe were actually initially offered a bigger chunk of land in north-east Africa, a deal which their leader Ben Gurion actually wanted, but the Zionist ideology would settle for no less than Israel (defined as being from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River). the immigrant Jews liked their new piece of land, and surprisingly, the Palestinians weren't too fond of getting the short end of the stick (or in this case having their stick taken and given to the new kid). the neighboring arab states, freshly free of colonialism just a few years before, tried to attack these Jewish settlements and failed miserably. and now you have a nuclear armed Israel which is not going to go anywhere without the world going to hell with it... think nuclear winter. but back to my point. there is no "Palestine", just people known as Palestinians that are walled off and living in bad version of hell, and have been for 3-4 generations now.

i'm not kidding about this either, these are seriously the facts. if you want a more "smarter" explanation for this, check out BBC's section on it. it's pretty well put together. and i'm sure my friend Yaakov will agree that these are all facts.

so even though i agree with most of the things you say, it really doesn't apply to this case. it is eerily similar to what the US did to the Native Americans a couple of hundred years ago. If might is right, then Israel can have it all and bomb away. but if decency is an issue, then we have a problem.

Of course might is right. That's how history gets shaped.

To a fault, I agree that might makes right.

History is written by the victors.

But, the question here is not whether Israel has the wartime capability to flatten Palestine: it does. The question is whether hostile actions taken in peacetime should be considered under the purview of wartime action, rather than peacetime hostility.

You've got to ask yourself WHY is the underdeveloped country underdeveloped.

Arabs deserve to be robbed, eh? White folks can take whatever they want from them, since the dirty little sand @!$%#s won't use it right in the first place, and if they object, then just kill them until they shut up and get in line.

You're a racist, Shawn. But that's no surprise.

You're a racist, Shawn. But that's no surprise.

Wait. Who was the first one to use a racial slur or make references to race in this thread?

White folks

dirty little sand @!$%#s

I was unaware that all Israeli Jews were European. To the best of my knowledge, there are more than a few Israeli Jews from Arab countries (their land was stolen by the Arab powers there. When those countries return their land, then maybe we can talk about Israel "returning" the land conquered in defensive wars.) non-Arab African countries, and other Asian countries. Before you suggest that these Jews are second-class and discriminated against, the (former?) president of Israel, Moshe Katsav is Iranian.

However, since they don't fit your stereotype of Jews, I guess they don't count.

"insert_name_here"... looks like you missed the sarcasm part of Jimmy's comment.

i understand what you're saying, about the jews from arab countries, but you have to understand it in a broader context. there have ALWAYS been muslims, jews, and christians in jerusalem and Palestine. the Palestinian's are a group of people, some Christian, some Jew, but mostly Muslim. the arab jews, knows as "Mizrahiem" jews, have been absorbed into israel, and they too face a lot of problems in regards to race discrimination from the "Ashkanazi", or European descent jews. you can nit-pick facts and figures, but it is well recognized in Political Science circles that it occurs. and really the same happens in most other countries as well, there is rampant discrimination in virtually every country, so i'm not picking on israel for that one.

but what is important here is that the arab jews lived on their land, and have for over 2 thousand years, with all sides recognizing them and their right to be there. the problem arose when they declared sovereignty and stopped recognizing the right of others to be there.

the problem arose when they declared sovereignty and stopped recognizing the right of others to be there.

Within the Palestinian narrative, that is when the problem arose, but that is an interpretive claim not on the level of historical fact. First, anti-Jewish violence in the region did predate that considerably, even going back to blood libels before 1900. And even when Jews were a successfully protected class (as opposed to people of non-Abrahamic religions who faced greater oppression), they were never given equality in any Muslim society. More importantly, though, there was a pre-existing problem that Jews were politically powerless the world over. To have done nothing about that would have been shameful, but since power flows from the nation state, the most direct and perhaps only solution would be a Jewish state. Imagine if it were the day after Kristallnacht and you lived in Jerusalem - Could you have possibly considered it moral to insist on British refusal to admit Jewish refugees? Without addressing the oppression of Jews predating the establishment of Israel (or even the the beginnings of modern Zionism), the argument that the formation of Israel is somehow the "root cause" is ahistorical.

More importantly, though, there was a pre-existing problem that Jews were politically powerless the world over.

There are many groups who are or were politically powerless. Jews are not unique in that aspect of their history. Your premise here seems to proceed out of a sense of narcissitic paranoia.

To have done nothing about that would have been shameful, but since power flows from the nation state, the most direct and perhaps only solution would be a Jewish state.

Please elaborate your argument here. It looks absurdly supernatural to me. For example, you might define "power" and you might define "flows." Additionally, Jews are hardly politically powerless in America, and I have strong doubts that their emancipation had anything to do with "power" "flowing" from Israel, it had to do with the rise of meritocracy in America.

Imagine if it were the day after Kristallnacht and you lived in Jerusalem - Could you have possibly considered it moral to insist on British refusal to admit Jewish refugees?

The rejection of Jewish refugees from Nazism is a blot on the history of many states, but it doesn't justify the Zionists' treatment of the residents of Palestine. The crimes against your tribe don't give you a free hand to commit crimes against anyone else.

Without addressing the oppression of Jews predating the establishment of Israel (or even the the beginnings of modern Zionism), the argument that the formation of Israel is somehow the "root cause" is ahistorical.

What a nice little straw man you've built. Perhaps you can sell it at a craft fair.

Who was the first one to use a racial slur or make references to race in this thread?

How politically correct of you not to use derogatory terms when you said that Arabs are an inferior race who don't deserve to keep their own property because they won't use it right.

How politically correct of you not to use derogatory terms when you said that Arabs are an inferior race who don't deserve to keep their own property because they won't use it right.

Jimmy, use your friggin' scroll bar or figure out what the word "you" means. I didn't comment at all in this thread.

Therefore, using elementary logic (which some of us seem to be lacking) I could not have said that "Arabs are an inferior race who don't deserve to keep their own property because they won't use it right."

Your entire argument depends on strawmen, putting words in people's mouths, and lies. How's a taste of your own medicine?

Sorry, you are right, that was Shawn. I guess you don't have any problems with what he said, then.

@ Jimmy Havok

You've got to ask yourself WHY is the underdeveloped country underdeveloped.

Arabs deserve to be robbed, eh? White folks can take whatever they want from them, since the dirty little sand @!$%#s won't use it right in the first place, and if they object, then just kill them until they shut up and get in line.

You're a racist, Shawn. But that's no surprise.

Once again, you seem to want to put words where they are not. You can think of me as a racist all day and night and I won't care. I'm not even putting race into it... because I don't care what race a person is. In a war - everyone dies the same way and makes a bloody mess across the dirt the same way when blown up. If both factions were colored purple, what excuse would you have to attack my opinion Jimmy? Religion, maybe... go ahead and concoct some slur to put in my mouth now... Please - if you're going to fight against my position, it would behoove you to ensure that it is the position that I'm already in and not some half assed position of convenience that you've concocted so you can feel good about looking in the mirror and saying "I are smarterer"

Sometimes Jimmy, facts are facts. Is Palestine underdeveloped in comparison to Israel? Yes. Is thats racist remark or implication? No. Its a fact. I then ask "why?" and did go on to state another fact "there has been no peace in taht region for over 1000 years". Again, this is a fact. Israel is part of that region, so subject to teh clause of being riddled with violence and unrest for upwards of 100 years. The difference here is that you read one thing and saw another... and spoke the latter. Tsk tsk.

@ insert_name_here

Even though you might not agree with what I've said, thanks for pointing out the logical fallacy in Jimmys "point". I'm rather tired of trying to get him to understand that a strawmen don't make good pets.

@ Babar Ali

Perhaps I'm not up on every fact there is about the conflict, and I would attribute some of that to being away from the heart of the conflict as well as being an American. Maybe it is no different that European countries getting on Americans about things they aren't involved in and only privy to what their media reports.

However, taking your point to heart I will do better in trying to understand the conflict better than I do. Irrespective of that, my initial point was not "might makes right", even though other comments either chose to take it that way or other comments argued for and against this. I didn't adress the deep rooted problem because I am largely unaware of it, but may know more than you might think (which I'll get to later). Anyway, I chose to simply address what I saw as the biggest point being made by other people who I felt also had a lack of understanding in the issue "Israel is bullying".

My point was not "might makes right", but rather that having might is not a reason to fault someone. I feel there needs to be something more than crying out "NO FAIR! They're better equipped" So what? The hasn't stopped the wars from being waged and I feel that if Palestine had won the past couple of wars, this wouldn't even be a point.

When I referred to 'animalistic tactics', I meant things along the lines of guerrilla warfare - hit and run in small groups and the use of unstable but effective improvised weaponry. One of the objects of war or anything competitive is to gain an upper hand. Unlike sports, war has few rules and the ones that exist are not always followed due to the overall point of war - which again, is to win.

Prior to posting my comments I was in fact aware that "palestinian" was a term used to define someone from the region irrespective of their religion. I also know that Isreal (Yisreal) is Hebrew for "Land of Isreal". I know that there is a LOT of controversy on who was there first and there have been several attempts from both sides to figure out that truth. The more fascinating of them is the genetic analysis. So far everything as far as I can tell is inconclusive. I'm left to sort the facts I find to the best of my ability and time resources and go from there. So far, I have to side with Israel.

Despite what Mr. Havok wants to believe, it isn't because Jews are "white", or because I believe in the same God that Jews do, because the US backs Israel, or the inverse of the same towards Palestine or any other Arab nation. Simply because the US is at war with Iraq, disapproves of Iran, and has their eyes on Sudan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan doesn't mean I will use my governments bias for my personal reasoning. It silly to think that I would. However, my reason for siding with Israel is because as far as I can tell, their religious texts dictate the Israel is theirs, the UN has allotted them a space and the Muslims have even granted them space in their own religious texts. Aside from that, most archelogogy points to Hebrews being native to that area, but outside conquest has, over time stripped the land of the natives. then after WWII, the British gave it back to Jews.

I feel that if the US is expected to succumb to the whims of the UN and the rest of the world in terms of our actions then it should be expected that the Arab nations be expected to do the same. It goes back and forth between Isreal and Palestine and sometimes it also seems that Isreal will say they will respond to a past infraction followed by Palestine stating they want a time of peace. Israel doesn't go back on their word so I can't help but wonder if it is part of this game being played.

During the ancient bible period, this region was referred to as Canaan and was the home of several small nations such as the Chanaanites, the Hethites, the Amorrhites, the Pherezites, the Hevites and the Jebusite, who lived in the ancient cities of Jericho, Megiddo, Sidon and others. Later, most of this region was conquered from these small nations by the Hebrews who settled in the region and divided it among the 12 Israelite tribes, who later were merged into one united kingdom of Israel. After 3 generations of kings, the kingdom was split in to 2 sister kingdoms: the northern kingdom of Israel , and the southern kingdom of Judah. After a few centuries the kingdoms were razed by invaders: The Assyrian Empire destroyed the northern kingdom and exiled its inhabitants (which became known as the Lost Tribes) at 722 BC, while the Babylonian Empire destroyed the southern kingdom (and the first Temple in Jerusalem) and exiled its inhabitants (who became known since as the Jews) at 586 BC. After approximately 70 years the Jewish exiles were allowed, by the Persian Empire, to return back to the Land of Israel, where they built the Second Temple in Jerusalem and where allowed to have a small autonomic rull.

-source

Normally interjecting religion to the argument would be a bit unacceptable due to the lack of adherence to organized religion and disdain that many people have towards the kids of discussions that happen when it is, but since both factions use religion as a reason I feel it rather necessary.

On the side of the Muslims (which Palestinians are), we can also see passages from the Q'aran supporting Israeli occupation of Israel.

Sura 2:190
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities."
Don't take @!$%#, but don't start it either... pretty cut and dry.

Sura 5:20-2
Recall that Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember GOD's blessings upon you: He appointed prophets from among you, made you kings, and granted you what He never granted any other people. "O my people, enter the holy land that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers." They said, "O Moses, there are powerful people in it, and we will not enter it, unless they get out of it. If they get out, we are entering." Two men who were reverent and blessed by God said, "Just enter the gate. If you just enter it, you will surely prevail. You must trust in God, if you are believers." They said, "O Moses, we will never enter it, so long as they are in it. Therefore, go - you and your Lord - and fight. We are sitting right here." He said, "My Lord, I can only control myself and my brother. So, allow us to part company with the wicked people." He (God) said, "Henceforth, it is forbidden them for forty years, during which they will roam the earth aimlessly. Do not grieve over such wicked people."

Moses is quoted as telling the Jews to "enter into the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you". Chrsitans and Jews alike understand that Moses was not allowed to enter, which is why he tells the others to go. While they did refuse, it was for a period of forty years, and despite that fact, it was indeed promised to them by God.

Sura 9:5
"Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and observe the Islamic lifestyle, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful."(basically, apologize and convert or die)

Sura 10:93-94
"We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place...If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee" -

That's pretty clear. You can see that the Q'aran talks about Jews in Israel.

Sura 16:126
"If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted."

I then ask "why?" and did go on to state another fact "there has been no peace in taht region for over 1000 years".

I guess you can claim the excuse of ignorance. The Middle East was at relative peace except for occasional invasions by the European powers under the Ottoman Empire for about half of the 1000 years. You claim that you weren't making a racist statement...but your further explanation of "why" certainly smacks of racism to me.

a lack of peace for over a thousand years or more, exclusion, and generally unaccepting of the changes the world has undergone in many area has kept a nation underdeveloped.

That reads "it's their own damn fault" to me, and puts the onus of being in an inferior position on the Palestinians.

we can also see passages from the Q'aran supporting Israeli occupation of Israel.

Sura 2:190 "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities." Don't take @!$%#, but don't start it either... pretty cut and dry.

You think this supports the Zionist seizure of Palestine? I suppose you think the Palestinians went off to Eastern Europe and picked a fight with the Zionists? No, my guess is that you are subscribing to the Israeli Big Lie that Israel was attacked first, a Big Lie that has been torn to pieces by Israeli historians, but still gets repeated and repeated, because that's how a Big Lie works.

So, it seems that alot of this is a big multi-national hissy fit over who gets to sit where.

You disgust me. A century of murder and ethnic cleansing is "a hissy fit." All of a piece with your endorsement of a Final Solution to the conflict because you find it "tiresome."

@ Jimmy

You claim that you weren't making a racist statement...but your further explanation of "why" certainly smacks of racism to me....That reads "it's their own damn fault" to me, and puts the onus of being in an inferior position on the Palestinians.

To an extent, it is their own damn fault. Just like, the world view of America and the loss of the Iraq war is the fault of America, not Iraq. WE @!$%#ed it up... WE as a country, a group of people who elected dumbass officials. WE, people allowing the liberal media to spin our heads off with bits and pieces of opinion laced fact and spins...

If I tell you that you are inferior to me, is that racist? No. I have no idea what color or race or religion you are, nor do I care. It is of no consequence to anything. My claim that the Palestinians are inferior technologically is not the same as saying they are less of a people because of their color.

You WANT to see the statement in this light because it is easier to do so. Then you get mad, because you WANT to be mad. Jimmy, almost anything I've ever said you've disagreed with and been combative with, and frankly I'm beginning to think it is because you simply dislike my phrasing or dislike my opinion. Please Jimmy, again, if you're going to fight against my position, don't make things up to be mad about and don't read into things that simply are not there. You might also try to think about things from the opposite perspective to gain an understanding of what and how I may come to my assertions or conclusions.

I still fail to see the racial card being played there. I do see you wanting to see one and trying desperately to get it out there. Nice try, no banana (no I'm not implying anything racial there either).

The Middle East was at relative peace except for occasional invasions by the European powers under the Ottoman Empire for about half of the 1000 years.

And I suppose you're trying to tell me that I said the Middle East was at constant war with itself? No. I simply said that it hadn't seen peace. Now, the Ottomans were who? The Turks who also conquered portions of hte Middle East, and yes, they were invaded by European peoples from time to time. This still doesn't absolve the statement I originally made.

You disgust me. A century of murder and ethnic cleansing is "a hissy fit." All of a piece with your endorsement of a Final Solution to the conflict because you find it "tiresome."

Yes, basically. I wonder how long it will take for one faction to wake up and say "This just isn't worth it. No wonder we're not going anywhere put down". Jimmy the US learned a tough lesson in pride over this last 3 years. It is an INTERNATIONAL (not a racial) hissy fit. Governments all over the world have at least a finger in the Israel / Palestine conflict - be it simply a voiced opinion or sending weapons and money. Why? Because they either have a vested interest or because they believe in the opposition of one of the groups.

Now you've called it an ethnic cleansing. Jimmy, almost anything that happens where one group doesn't get what they want, killed, pushed back or removed from power is "ethnic cleansing". It's an over used term and one often used to promote a horrible extremity.

ETHNIC: Of being the same character, background, or affiliation; often the result of racial or cultural ties.

By your definition the prison system being largely black in large cities is no more than "oppressive action" and a form of "ethnic cleansing". It isn't truth, but you've pretty much defined Israel / Palestine in this light.

Israelis aren't killing Palestinians because they are Muslim, or because they are Arab. There are Arab Jews and White Muslims... so your term won't really work too well, or at least isn't the best description. It seems that you too, do not fully understand the situation. Most of hte war is being fought over what each group believes to be their divine rights. I pointed out how in the Q'aran there is pretty clear text about how the Jews are supposed to be there right now, which takes me to my "hissy fit" statement again. It seems the Palestinians aren't happy (at least the leaders).

We, in America get angry when someone spouts off religious babble in public, telling people they need to repent, save themselves and their neighbors. We make an effort to disallow Church to be part of State.... or school, and sometimes public domain. We;ve exposed the level of corruption that sometimes occurs within the Churches and various Religions, and we sit atop our soapbox and loudly proclaim "see, this is why Church should be separate from State". Yet, we view Israel as being religiously corrupt and morally unjust. We look at Palestine and say "poor guys" and don't fully understand their Q'aran. We're quick to defend it or quick to scorn it... but I'll ask you - do you know what the Q'aran says? Do you own one? Have you read it? Do you think I pulled those verses out of my ass?

I have a Q'aran, Bible, Book of the Dead (Papyrus of Ani), Torah, Book of Mormon, Buddha-Dharma, The Gita... I'm not Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Latter Day Saint, Hindu, nor do I plan of performing an Egyptian funerary, but I do wish to understand what it is that I'm either debating for or against better than I do. I will never understand a religion outside of my own like someone else who practices a different faith will, but then I haven't devoted as much time. I don't want to superficially dislike Muslims or mislabel all Arabs as being Muslim. Nowhere in the Q'aran does it say "you must be Arab", and no where in the Torah does it say "thou shalt be of white descent".

So, it is an international hissy fit. Unfortunately it is only a matter of time before someone from one or both sides looks across the border and says "My God / Oh, Allah - what have we been doing?". Yes, it is tiresome. We grew tired of OJ, David Koresh, Jeffery Dhamer, and Jon Bonet Ramsey. Oh, wait! this is mass killing and war.. I see... so that makes it LESS tiresome? No. We are mostly tired of hearing about this, Darfur (and no, there's not much we can do there since they are an autonomous country), Iraq, and anything else that involves this kind of thing. I just think you disapprove of my phrasing because it comes off as a bit cold and abrasive - I prefer to think of it as blunt and obvious. Why sugar coat things for the sake of being PC? Call it what it is. If you're disgusted about my views, that's your prerogative and no one forced you to read and contort my words, kiddo.

In all honesty, sometimes I wish that the world would let the two duke it out. Both believe their are in the divine right, let them prove it. People die in wars, this is a known fact. Unfortunately it may take a serious blood letting to get them and the world to understand that what has happened and what is happening and what COULD happen in the future costs more than it is worth. The world soon forgets a lot of the terrible things that happen in it, and this.. I think just needs to go down.

Jimmy, almost anything I've ever said you've disagreed with and been combative with, and frankly I'm beginning to think it is because you simply dislike my phrasing or dislike my opinion.

It's not your phrasing, it's your apparent lack of normal human empathy that I dislike.

Yaakov: Your character is revealed in your words. If you use invalid arguments, if you base your arguments on lies, you cannot expect them to be accepted. If you make excuses for theft and murder, you cannot expect to be respected. If you participate in theft and murder, you cannot complain at being called a thief and a murderer.

Shawn complained that I don't like anything that he writes. I explained what I found wrong with it.

Your character is revealed in your words. If you use invalid arguments, if you base your arguments on lies, you cannot expect them to be accepted. If you make excuses for theft and murder, you cannot expect to be respected. If you participate in theft and murder, you cannot complain at being called a thief and a murderer.

It goes both ways.

@ Jimmy

It's not your phrasing, it's your apparent lack of normal human empathy that I dislike.

Okay, I can understand that, but nowhere does it say that I have to be empathic with anyone. Technically I can't empathize with anyone unless I've been though the same things. I am not required to "feel" for anything. It might help if you understood more about WHO I am and not what you THINK I am.

I can however sympathize with them. We see things differently, but you still need to attack my position (and not one you make up), and not me.

When I read about the Middle East I look at both sides of it, or try to. Simply becuse I agree with a side that you disagree with is not qualification to think of me as heartless. I happen to believe that in life, there is less "chance" than "choice". Most of us are just too short sighted or devious to see it, and sometimes I'm included in that group.

Technically I can't empathize with anyone unless I've been though the same things.

I guess a lack of empathy is like a lack of the sense of smell. It doesn't even bother you that it isn't there, even though the lack causes your life to be more difficult.

Simply becuse I agree with a side that you disagree with is not qualification to think of me as heartless.

I consider you heartless because of the arguments you present.

I guess a lack of empathy is like a lack of the sense of smell. It doesn't even bother you that it isn't there, even though the lack causes your life to be more difficult.

Um...I'm sure it does. I survive though. I've found "easy" isn't as wholesome. Earn what you get, be it good or bad.

I consider you heartless because of the arguments you present.

Perhaps I am. I acknowledge myself for who and what I am... and go about my day. I disagree with your opinion of me, but in a way I see what you mean - your opinions and comments or arguments don't make me rethink my arguments or direct me to think harder about what I've said. Usually they cause me to be standfast and get you to see a side other than your own. I guess in this sense we're both pretty closed.

It's been real and it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun.

As a vocab nerd, I'd agree with Shawn's use of sympathy versus empathy. You have sympathy for someone's plight. Empathy involves understanding and entering into someone else's feelings. I doubt that I know enough about what's going on over there to accurately identify how I would be feeling in those circumstances.

are you serious right now?... i hope that was sarcasm. tough to tell these days.

I was halfway serious. I am so tired of this low grade war dragging on and on that I just want it to erupt in a huge massive bloodbath and be over one way or the other. And cluster bombing a couple hundred civilians seems like a good start.

wow. not sure what to say to that one.

that is either the most inhumane comment or the intellectually laziest. i can't decide.

it's easy to make war. it's the peace that takes a bit of effort.

i thought libertarians were supposed to be peaceful folk?

I am so tired of this low grade war dragging on and on that I just want it to erupt in a huge massive bloodbath and be over one way or the other.

Wow. I've heard people occasionally saying things like this when playing Counterstrike, but you apparently think that the massacre of probably millions is the better solution because you just want it to "be over one way or the other."

I hope this was sarcasm to an extreme.

No it wasn't. When a peaceful solution is impossible, as has been proven over and over and over and over in this case - then the only solution is outright war. There really aren't any other options. If you have some I'd be interested to hear them. The present situation is untenable.

While I do think that keeping a dull roar of hostility is not the way to end conflicts, I'm still going to call

I just want it to erupt in a huge massive bloodbath and be over one way or the other. And cluster bombing a couple hundred civilians seems like a good start.

rather disturbingly cold and off-the-cuff.
.
There are better ways to say "Someone should declare war and accept that there is little chance for peaceful negotiations to resolve issues, given the historical context."