That's right. It is a shame that there is so much else going on because this story won't get much press. it really distinguishes between Hamas and Israel in many ways.

Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization and Israel is a close ally. Hamas was behaving badly and Israel was given a free pass to go apeshit on them before Obama's term started. With a 100 to 1 kill ratio in the conflict, how much better could it have gone for Israel?

By this line of thinking, Japan was on par with US in World War 2. Although the ratio was a meager 50 Japanese to 1 US dead, I would offer that the similarity does not end there. Both Israel and the US were attacked by the same group that lost terribly. Did the US fare well in the war?

Did Japan bring the war on themselves? Yes.
Did Hamas have bring the war on themselves. Yes

Why did Hamas bring such a war on themselves and then complain about the casualties Israel brings on them?

(BTW, Both Japan and Hams have 5 letters also. See? More similarities! )

Also could you provide source of your data of 100:1 ratio?

If Wiki during the Gaza war, then the count the amount of civilian Israeli deaths caused by bombings and rocket attacks. Just to be fair, after all....

Neal Anderth wrote:Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization and Israel is a close ally. Hamas was behaving badly and Israel was given a free pass to go apeshit on them before Obama's term started. With a 100 to 1 kill ratio in the conflict, how much better could it have gone for Israel?

These conversations always seem to escalate, but it is important to acknowledge just what Goldstone is now saying. He had been quoted extensively throughout the world (and on these pages) as evidence of Israel's foul play. I personally was influenced by his view because he seems like an honorable man. However, Goldstone has recanted and now says that Israel DID NOT target civilians. He also has applauded Israel for investigating those reports where Palestinian civilians had been killed and determining whether the IDF acted appropriately. Meanwhile Hamas continues to fire rockets (which are even more powerful than before) indiscriminately hoping to hit innocent civilians.

Escalate what? I've consistently defended Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attack. I don't see anyone here suggesting otherwise. Hamas is a terrorist organization, it's just not a fact in dispute on this board.

Typically "apeshit" is not a term of endearment.

By citing a 100 to 1 kill rate, you've shown that you missed the point: Israel did not desire and tried to avoid civilian casualties.

Per Wikipedia the stats were about 700 Hamas fighter killed ... about 500 Palestinian civilians ... Israel lost 10 soldiers and 3 civilians. about 500 Israelis were injured (1/3 civilians) and about 5,000 Palestinians were injured.

To answer your question, it could have gone better if no civilians died.

I should have said that Hamas went apeshit and Israel 'unleashed hell' in retribution. Please excuse me for confusing the meaning of apeshit.

Where's the Goldstone Report for Iraq and Afghanistan?

How about a Goldstone type report on

Iran sanctioning rape of its citizens in jail
Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Gaza, Iraq shooting at their own people
Sudan arranging mass murder of it's Christian populations in the south

ray are you aware of this?

Three members of the UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war of 2008-09 have turned on the fourth member and chair of the group, Richard Goldstone, accusing him in all but name of misrepresenting facts in order to cast doubt on the credibility of their joint report.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... -goldstone



the 100 to 1 number comes from the Goldstone report. It was an indication of what the report called "disproportionate use of force" and "indiscriminate use of force". However the 100 to 1 tallies 13 Israelis dead versus about 1300 Palestinians. Something like 600 to 700 of the Palestinians were women or children, and as much as 1000 probably non-combatants. . And original critics of the report also point out that 7 of the Israelis deaths were from friendly fire. (IDF firing on their own)

As well it should be noted:

The Goldstone Report did appropriately emphasize the severe Israeli departures from the law of war by attacking with disproportionate and indiscriminate force against a crowded, mainly urbanized society. But it failed to emphasize a distinctive feature of the attacks: that Israel denied the civilian population of Gaza the option to leave the war zone and become refugees, at least temporarily

What many critics of the IDf focus on was this specific point.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011417115920432106.htmlT

There are two things occurring in the MidEast that are perhaps game changers in Israel and Palestine. The first is weaponry. The Israelis have deployed new anti-rocket systems that seem to be effectively rendering the long range rockets launched from Gaza useless. They can quickly calculate the rockets destination and be launched to destroy them in flight if they are going to populated areas... If this is true, it means that Israel can defend themselves without risking collateral damage . And it means that terrorists can't hide amongst the populace and still strike at the Israelis so easily (though not with substantial effect) anymore.
The second is the Arab awakening. If the process in the Arab world continues towards increasing liberalization it means that the Israel/Palestine situation will not resonate as deeply within the Arab community. First, because the despots won't be using it as a distraction for their populace. Second, because the freer citizens are likely to focus on their internal problems and forego involvement in Palestine's problems.

And Ruffhaus. One of the reasons, the primary reason many on the right contend, that Soviet Russia and communism crumbled was the increasing cost of militarization. The contention is that in order to keep up with the US escalating military commitments the Soviets spent an inordinate amount of their resources on the military and the inability to satisfy the needs of their populations created an implosion. If that's the case, Israel's disproportionate military expenditure is problematic. Certainly the US can't afford to continue to expend so much on the military can it?
Somewhere along the line an entirely militaristic solution becomes untenable.

Ruffhaus said:

I am curious if the reason that you and Ray Jay feeel that a move to the left is a good thing because you really believe that is the stumbling block to lasting peace in Israel, or simply because you prefer to see a general move to the left in any/all governments.

I do hope you realize that NA and I mostly vehemently disagree on this subject

I generally agree with a lot of your analysis. As to the Middle East, where I come out differently than you is in 2 areas. The first is that the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) should only be retained for security and not settlement. I believe in a 2 state solution and see the cost of maintaining that land as not worth the hostility. Israel is retaining it for 3 reasons: 1. Religious 2. Economic 3. Security. I only see the 3rd reason as valid. Many Israelis (30% ?) agree with me.

My 2nd major disagreement with you is that this conflict is also being fought in the western media. The unrest in the Arab world is demonstrating to all that it is the politics and culture of the Arab world that is the source of the problem. Governments kill their own people. Factions engage in suicide bombings for tribal differences (Iraq). If Israel can demonstrate that Settlements are not the problem by stopping them in the West Bank, it would create much better PR in Europe (so that it can be more sympathetic to Israel) and the US (which is in danger of turning).

But stopping the settlments is largely for PR value. I see a limited chance (less than 1%?) that the Palestinians would agree to peace of any sort. Most of what they and the Arabs have said and done for the last 80 years supports my view. Even so, Israel should put forth a peace proposal (as is being argued by Shimon Peres, their Presdient).

Ricky said:

The contention is that in order to keep up with the US escalating military commitments the Soviets spent an inordinate amount of their resources on the military and the inability to satisfy the needs of their populations created an implosion. If that's the case, Israel's disproportionate military expenditure is problematic.

Ricky, Israel is a democracy. The USSR was a totalitarian state. Israel votes to spend that money to protect its citizens and survive. The USSR spent that money to maintain its influence in Eastern Europe, Cuba, and and the various "Republics" who did not want to be part of the USSR. These are not analogous situations.

Also, take a look at Israeli military spending as a % of GDP. Without looking, I'm going to opine that it is lower than it had been in the 50's.

The Israelis will spend whatever it takes to prevent being wiped out. If you are thinking otherwise, you are demonstrating your ignorance.

Ricky, the Al Jazeera opinion piece that you quoted is a joke. How can you not cringe reading that?

Wouldn't you agree that the UNHRC is thoroughly anti-Israel?

Ray, the US is a democracy too. Can you afford to continue spending on the military the way you spend?
A bucks a buck. When the threat is existential you don't have the option, I agree.

But the question in Israel is whether or not there is another route to peace and security that doesn't involve military expenditures. (Including US aid.)
If the option is continuing to force Palestinians to live in walled off Gaza or the Bantu like West Bank then the costs are going to continue. If there is a serious option to assisting the nascent democracy on the West Bank to achieve a prosperity that gives its citizens hope and a dignified life then that makes more sense. If the one impediment to this is settlements on the West Bank, settlements not supported by the majority of Israelis, but demanded by a small ultra religious rump that has outsized influence in the Knesset ...
I contend that there is a way out that isn't being followed because of that domestic (Israel domestic) political situation...
and not becasue Israelis don't majorly want to follow that route.
And by the way, thre threat to Israels existence... today don't you think that today its exagerated? Isn't it more a threat of terrorism to which the IDSF is forced to respond?
realistically there isn't a real military threat of invasion in the middle east to Israel.