Why is there no thread on this war?Only a handful of people were behind the deaths of innocent people at 9/11. For the deaths of innocent people in Gaza it is millions of people: almost a whole country (huge backing of Israeli citizens), and they can only do it because of US backing (more people behind it/allowing it). Which is more shocking?On one side more than 1000 casualties (and I don t know how many injured), on the other side 13 (almost half of them actually due to friendly fire). Who are the “terrorists”?And what does terrorist mean? What s the difference with a resistant? English would call Irish terrorists too in the 1920’s. I have noticed that very intelligent people lose their ability to be rational and objective when it comes to topics like religion. I ve noticed the same thing with my Israeli/Jewish friends when it comes to “the situation”: they all independently transform into some person repeating the same sentences and with whom it s impossible to reason “You can t understand(…) you don t live there (…) force is the only language they understand (…) Iran supports them and Iran want to raze Israel (…) they re very good at making themselves look like victims (...) the West bank wall is there to stop them killing themselves (…)”It seems that when a topic has to do with the identity of people (race/religion), then people stop being able to think and see things objectively. They all follow the same line (us vs them). I really admired and applauded those Jewish people who were at the march in London last Saturday.

After 9/11 CNN showed huge crowds of palestinians dancing on the Gaza streets celebrating death of innocent americans. In case you did not know this, Hamas (supported by majority of palestinians in Gaza) has fired rockets at civilians in Israel for 3 almost years. Now they use their own civilians as a human shield.Any country in Israel's situation would bomb the enemy territory until there is a parking slot there.Palestinians in Gaza are getting 30% from US and more than 50% from Europe. They get free food from suckers and they don't have to work to make a living, which explains the population growth there. The money that they get from arabs and iranians are used to buy weapons which they use almost exclusively against Israel civilians. If west want to help them they should stop feeding them.

QuoteErrbAny country in Israel's situation would bomb the enemy territory until there is a parking slot there.I don't agree. Other countries resolved their problems by negotiating. (Neither Crossmaglen nor Dundalk was bombed to the ground.)Including phosphor bombs, UN compound gone, 400 children killed and maimed? Most people think you have broken the Geneva conventions. By excluding foreign journalists does not add to your credibility. We just have to take your word for it.QuoteAnd what does terrorist mean? What s the difference with a resistant? English would call Irish terrorists too in the 1920’s. It's a catch-all term and avoids having to address real problems. Nelson Mandela was classified as a terrorist until recently. And the British had a police force in Palestine in 1947 to stop terrorists who later became prime minister.Maybe Obama has fresh ideas.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteErrbAny country in Israel's situation would bomb the enemy territory until there is a parking slot there.I don't agree. Other countries resolved their problems by negotiating. (Neither Crossmaglen nor Dundalk was bombed to the ground.)Including phosphor bombs, UN compound gone, 400 children killed and maimed?Most people think you have broken the Geneva conventions. By excluding foreign journalists does not add to your credibility. We just have to take your word for it.QuoteAnd what does terrorist mean? What s the difference with a resistant? English would call Irish terrorists too in the 1920’s. It's a catch-all term and avoids having to address real problems. Nelson Mandela was classified as a terrorist until recently. And the British had a police force in Palestine in 1947 to stop terrorists who later became prime minister.Maybe Obama has fresh ideas.I don't beleive Ireland systematically fired rockets at British cities, if they would do so I doubt that the cities you mention would be still on the map. How do you know what most people think? Did you conduct systematic poll? Did you attribute their opinions to their country of origin or their religion. In this case it matters. I guess we will just take your word for what most people think.

WP

I fear that behavioral economics has a rather grim insight into this conflict. In team-based cooperate/defect experiments in which the group can punish a non-cooperator, the non-cooperator has two follow-on strategies: 1) show remorse and cooperate or 2) take revenge on the group. So far, experiments have found that participants from Northern European countries tend to pick #1 and those from Southern countries tend to pick #2. I don't think anyone has uncovered the basis for this dichotomy, but it appears that the Palestinians and Israelis seem locked in a no-win cycle of mutual revenge.

Cuch, First sentence from your link about WP"Israel used White Phosphorus against HAMAS targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This violated no international laws or conventions. "

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaI fear that behavioral economics has a rather grim insight into this conflict. In team-based cooperate/defect experiments in which the group can punish a non-cooperator, the non-cooperator has two follow-on strategies: 1) show remorse and cooperate or 2) take revenge on the group. So far, experiments have found that participants from Northern European countries tend to pick #1 and those from Southern countries tend to pick #2. I don't think anyone has uncovered the basis for this dichotomy, but it appears that the Palestinians and Israelis seem locked in a no-win cycle of mutual revenge.Behavioral economics assumes that agents have more or less rational strategies. The strategy of palestinians in this case is self destruction. In a place where I come from it is not considered rational.

Actually I forgot these 2 sentences in sentences I always hear:1. "tv shows them dancing when there is an attack", I ve heard that one from Israeli friends too, about other attacks.2. "they use civilians as humans shield" (only heard that one recently re the first one: I too remember a tv footage in the news fo a few people cheering...the interesting question is: why would cnn show such footage?so you can see them all into one whole entity, "they", and so you can convince yourself that "they" are all evil people?and you have a clear conscience when you let "them" live in an arpatheid and being bombed? evidently the ones that are bombed are the same ones that were cheering?Should the people who were chering be bombed anyway?In my memory they were mostly kids who probably did not understand what was going on....re 2nd one: I heard that from the Israeli spokesman too (the one with the Russian name): he bombs cities and then say that whatever people they were targeting were hiding behind civilians! I mean, think about it. That s exactly the sort of reasoning I meant when I said intelligent people could not reason anymore when it comes to this....You saying that Palestinians live on benefits?!that s a interesting way of talking about people living in what is basicaly a huge camp, under economic blockade/ and for the ones in the West bank with a wall and check points all over that prevent them from moving around...A place like Bethleem shld be full of tourists... And there is nobody. Just a few people in buses who get off for a few minutes and back on the bus and back to Jerusalem, without having spent any money in Bethleem...Talking about living on benefits I d have thought that Israel get a bit more?The US pay for those check points by the wall: maybe that s what you count as aid for the palestinians?I will pass the "they don t have to work", as if it was paradise on earth: they get everything for free...The problem is that people like you - and I m sure you re a very open and intelligent person when it comes to other things - just turns into some kind of robot when it comes to that. As I described in my first post.In politics it s a bit the same. People will always defend what "their party" say, whatever they say. If the party had said the opposite they would have thought the opposite was right, and found the opposite arguments the right ones....Like football fans who say it s a penalty when it s their team, and are convinced it is. But had it been the other team they would have been as convinced that it was a dive...I think my Israeli/Jewish friends have it wrong when they say "You can t understad you don t live there". On the contrary, I can understand better because I dont belong to one side. So my analysis is not biaised.Whatever your view on the conflict, this war is not gonna make things better. It s obviously make things worse for the people who are being bombed - but it will make things worse for Israelis and Jewish people too. It s a lose/lose situation.

Let's make a thought experiment. What would you do if you were prime minister of Israel? Regarding your other questions/statements: Yes, palestinians are getting free food from US and Europe. They also get free fuel,electricity and humanitarian aid from Israel even during the periods when they fire rockets at it. Yes, Gaza is giant jail and a project house simultaneously. If you open the borders they kidnap soldjers, send suicide bombers and do all kind of shit hazardous to neighbours.You can find pictures on youtube published recently where there is a clear evidence that rockets and explosives were hidden in mosques and other civilian objects.

I d love to be Israeli PM.Me and my collaborators would be convince that living peacefully with our neighbours is the only way.We would cite Europe as an example where people used to do war to each other and marvel at how quickly it all changed. That would show that it is possible to live peacefully with the arab neighbours.In terms of practical measures:I would stop deshumanising Palestinians (by showing a few people cheering at 9/11 for instance), I would encourage all the projects of arabs and Israelis doing things together.I would have as a goal to stop Israeli people to be scared of Palestinians.It would be a slow process - but possible.In terms of the big questions, and if all goes well: - of course in the end settlements would not only have to stop growing, but they d have to be removed.- and end of the occupation to east Jerusalem.I m sure my people would be ready to "sacrify" that if they can live in peace, don t you think?And trying to live in peace is the only way...

QuoteOriginally posted by: HerdI d love to be Israeli PM.Me and my collaborators would be convince that living peacefully with our neighbours is the only way.We would cite Europe as an example where people used to do war to each other and marvel at how quickly it all changed. That would show that it is possible to live peacefully with the arab neighbours.In terms of practical measures:I would stop deshumanising Palestinians (by showing a few people cheering at 9/11 for instance), I would encourage all the projects of arabs and Israelis doing things together.I would have as a goal to stop Israeli people to be scared of Palestinians.It would be a slow process - but possible.In terms of the big questions, and if all goes well: - of course in the end settlements would not only have to stop growing, but they d have to be removed.- and end of the occupation to east Jerusalem.I m sure my people would be ready to "sacrify" that if they can live in peace, don t you think?And trying to live in peace is the only way...Living in peace is good. Unfortunately I could not find too many practical measures in your list. By practical I mean something that has a chance of having any desired effect during next 5 years.All attempts to have peace deal with palestinians failed in the past. The biggest problem is that there is nobody on palestinian side who can deliver on their promisses. Corrupted Fatah party is not extremely popular even among palestinians, terrorist organization Hamas (sponsored by Iran) does not even want to pretend that they are interested in peace.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnWPAnother (less partisan?) viewpoint WP2 QuoteThe Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.” Quote White phosphorus has the slang name “Willy Pete”, which dates from the First World War. It was commonly used in the Vietnam era

QuoteOriginally posted by: ErrrbCuch, First sentence from your link about WP"Israel used White Phosphorus against HAMAS targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This violated no international laws or conventions. "It depends how it was used. We might never know because there are no foreign reporters on the ground. Nice. Looking back at the source of this text again, it does not surprise me now... In this case the messenger is crucial.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: ErrrbCuch, First sentence from your link about WP"Israel used White Phosphorus against HAMAS targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This violated no international laws or conventions. "It depends how it was used. We might never know because there are no foreign reporters on the ground. Nice. Looking back at the source of this text again, it does not surprise me now... In this case the messenger is crucial.Are you saying that we should not trust the sources that you use, unless they are consistent with the picture that you somehow got without foreign reporters on the ground?