44 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

Well these basically started when the Western powers very smartly decided to create a country for the Jewish population on one of their old religious sites. Not bad logic, however they neglected to ask the current inhabitants and also have sparked a long running war with probably one of the highest casualty rates of and conflict over the last 50 years.

Now, does anyone have an opinion about how peace can be reached and what methods should be taken?

[Dutchygamer]

No (military) action should be taken by neither the US, nor the UN. Let Sarkozy give it another try, and if not, ignore them. The war will end sometime, either in peace, or that both parties are non-existant.
My 2 cent.

[Zero]

Well...I'm not sure where to start. I think that force shouldn't be applied on the Muslim countries, but on Israel itself. The UN should undo what it did and take back some of the conquered land, and split what is left between the Pals and Isr's. The US, unfortunately, is too weak (financially) to fight another war because of this huge waste of money we call Iraq (just make damn Hydrogen Fuel Cell!!), which sucks, here's why: when the Israel became a country, they were already prepared for war, which happened almost instantly, how? Well, they used their power in the lobby to not only get Israel through US& UN, but also HUGE amounts of weapons (such as Jets, Tanks, Guns, and so on), this comes from an American who loves his country: we FUCKED UP! BIG TIME! Not only the government but also the people who did nothing to protest or fight en-masse because we were so guilt ridden at the time (do to anti-semmitism during AND after AND before WWII).

How do I propose we do this the most efficiently? Simply put, we can actually go up to the UN and form a REAL international militia (a world army...like the order of the black knights *grin*-I like that idea because it could REALLY help discourage wars). We can use this militia to press Israel, unfortunately, if it turns out they DO have nukes (which is REALLY likely), then we might be fucked..... However, if military force doesn't work then we could always use Covert Ops to deal with the problem, but that is cowardly, and may result in a war fought against the wrong enemy for the wrong reasons.

We can't let them fight it out either, someday they'll run out of people to fight and use nukes, and if they drop about 10 nukes...nuclear winter! FOR EVERYONE! ALL AROUND THE WORLD!

No, actually, I think that we can use guerilla tactics (remember the Vietcong?). Afterall, a dessert gives a LOT of hiding opportunities with the right gear along with a small militarized force AND political savvy (although I'm not sure what this would be). Also, to keep down the chance of a nuke war (hopefully they aren't Belkans and won't drop 4 nukes in their own territory...) the military force should be kept anonymous, use common gear that could link it to at least 10 other countries, that way if Israel tried to fight EVERY possible enemy, they'd be stretched to thin. I see Russian weapons all around with highly trained crews trained by the Ruskies or US. Aircraft-wise, however, I think US should handle, stealth would ensure that only a handful can do PLENTY of damage; I recommend F-35s (which are being sent to a load of other countries as well, along with a FEW F-22s), and maybe some B-2s every once in a while. The guerillas should be trained by experts...probably a combination of SVR (if is a fragment of what KGB was)-sorry if I'm mixing it up with other intel agency- and CIA, as well as some mercenaries. Actually, I suggest we hire PLENTY of mercenaries, to lead the guerillas and train them with Special Ops forces which we lightly insert into both the militarized force. Unfortunately, guerilla forces tend to be volatile, so they too should be made up of a coalition of soldier that are fighting for the same end-goal (not potentially bias locals). Then we can push them against a wall and offer assistance from US and so on, and if they agree (which to do they must return the land they took and give palestine back its rights as a country) then we can quickly make away with the force, of course, the last part has to be executed well enough to make sure there are VERY FEW casualties and unnecessary injuries.

I think that is the lesser of two evils....

[Jok3r]

Zero, on 2 Jan 2009, 12:10, said:

Well...I'm not sure where to start. I think that force shouldn't be applied on the Muslim countries, but on Israel itself. The UN should undo what it did and take back some of the conquered land, and split what is left between the Pals and Isr's. The US, unfortunately, is too weak (financially) to fight another war because of this huge waste of money we call Iraq (just make damn Hydrogen Fuel Cell!!), which sucks, here's why: when the Israel became a country, they were already prepared for war, which happened almost instantly, how? Well, they used their power in the lobby to not only get Israel through US& UN, but also HUGE amounts of weapons (such as Jets, Tanks, Guns, and so on), this comes from an American who loves his country: we FUCKED UP! BIG TIME! Not only the government but also the people who did nothing to protest or fight en-masse because we were so guilt ridden at the time (do to anti-semmitism during AND after AND before WWII).

How do I propose we do this the most efficiently? Simply put, we can actually go up to the UN and form a REAL international militia (a world army...like the order of the black knights *grin*-I like that idea because it could REALLY help discourage wars). We can use this militia to press Israel, unfortunately, if it turns out they DO have nukes (which is REALLY likely), then we might be fucked..... However, if military force doesn't work then we could always use Covert Ops to deal with the problem, but that is cowardly, and may result in a war fought against the wrong enemy for the wrong reasons.

We can't let them fight it out either, someday they'll run out of people to fight and use nukes, and if they drop about 10 nukes...nuclear winter! FOR EVERYONE! ALL AROUND THE WORLD!

No, actually, I think that we can use guerilla tactics (remember the Vietcong?). Afterall, a dessert gives a LOT of hiding opportunities with the right gear along with a small militarized force AND political savvy (although I'm not sure what this would be). Also, to keep down the chance of a nuke war (hopefully they aren't Belkans and won't drop 4 nukes in their own territory...) the military force should be kept anonymous, use common gear that could link it to at least 10 other countries, that way if Israel tried to fight EVERY possible enemy, they'd be stretched to thin. I see Russian weapons all around with highly trained crews trained by the Ruskies or US. Aircraft-wise, however, I think US should handle, stealth would ensure that only a handful can do PLENTY of damage; I recommend F-35s (which are being sent to a load of other countries as well, along with a FEW F-22s), and maybe some B-2s every once in a while. The guerillas should be trained by experts...probably a combination of SVR (if is a fragment of what KGB was)-sorry if I'm mixing it up with other intel agency- and CIA, as well as some mercenaries. Actually, I suggest we hire PLENTY of mercenaries, to lead the guerillas and train them with Special Ops forces which we lightly insert into both the militarized force. Unfortunately, guerilla forces tend to be volatile, so they too should be made up of a coalition of soldier that are fighting for the same end-goal (not potentially bias locals). Then we can push them against a wall and offer assistance from US and so on, and if they agree (which to do they must return the land they took and give palestine back its rights as a country) then we can quickly make away with the force, of course, the last part has to be executed well enough to make sure there are VERY FEW casualties and unnecessary injuries.

I think that is the lesser of two evils....

Excuse if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting we should remove Israel as a political and military entity? Or are you saying we should starve them from Military Capability, and leave them at the hands of Arab nations that want little more than to kill them in as slow a way as possible? Between the sheer intolerance your exhibiting just in saying that (I'm sorry, but I've never found the idea of leaving people to die as tolerant) and the facts you have wrong (it wasn't until the '60s that the US began arming Israel- Britain was their benefactor in the beginning), I honestly don't know what to say. Seriously, are you really suggesting that the US and Russia hire mercenaries to destroy Israel? I'm sorry, but what is your problem with Israel?

[Rayburn]

First of all, I fully support the souvereignty of the Israeli state and the measures they take against the seemingly constant onslaught of terror, although a little exaggerated, are understandable. After all, Israel is a small country surrounded from all sides by nations which, secretly or openly, want it GONE from the face of Earth. However, I do reckon that the west is to blame for the present day situation, after all, they just declared a Jewish state in a land which used to be Islamic for ages, seemingly oblivious of the anger they'd be inciting. Had Israel been founded elsewhere, for example in Europe, the situation in the Middle East would be a very different one, although not peaceful. Look at Afghanistan. When the Russians launched their invasion, they faced a more or less united resistance composed of various militant groups but after the communists pulled out, these once allied groups started fighting against each other with the Taliban coming out on top. Without Israel, that is, if Israel were to be defeated OR if it had never existed in its present day borders, a similar thing could have happened in the Middle East. The main enemy that connects all these little groups is gone, so they start killing each other for the sake of increasing their own, personal influence. The same thing would probably happen if the coalition troops were to withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan. Bottom line: Peace is unlikely. Essentially, this is a territorial conflict we're talking about but certain individuals have brought a religious 'holy war' into it and such wars tend to go on endlessly and divide the opposing factions more than any political conflict ever could.

Edited by Rayburn, 02 January 2009 - 20:17.

[BeefJeRKy]

Perhaps in hindsight, it was a bad idea for the state of Israel to be created but now it is too late to undo that mistake. As for the current problems in Gaza, it starts with the extremist Hamas followers who refuse to cooperate withe more moderate Fatah party in peace talks and choose to launch rockets into Israel. Basically, the only good solution is to properly educate the Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank over the next generation because they turn to religious extremism rather than logic when facing a hostile state (this can also apply to Hezbollah in Lebanon). Basically Hamas has to be dissolved but not through force but from within. Also, the Israelis should give more 'acts of good will' to give the Palestinian people a chance to trust them. Also, weakening support from both Syria and Iran (the latter of which is known to supply both Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons) will help strengthen the chances for peace. Action has to be taken from both sides of the conflict as well as from the external parties like Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, the Syrian government, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians who all play influential roles.

[Rayburn]

``Perhaps in hindsight, it was a bad idea for the state of Israel to be created´´

Well, the actual IDEA was not that bad in my opinion, after all, the Israeli people have been scattered all across the world for centuries without a country they could really call their own. On top of that, anti-semitism has been extremely common for ages, so until the creation of modern Israel, these people never had a place they could truly call their home. The problem is that the West, in its short-sightedness, created this country in a place which couldn't have been any more awkward to say the least.

``Basically, the only good solution is to properly educate the Palestinians´´

Precisely. As a matter of fact, the radicals usually recruit their followers from the poor, uneducated masses and as we all know from various historical experiences, uneducated people easily follow the rhetorics of aggressive leaders because they give them a seemingly simple explanation and an apparent solution to their bad situation which, in this case, is to blow oneself up in the middle of a crowd. The only way to make these radical viewpoints ineffective is to enlighten the masses before the seeds of terror and hatred can sprout. Unfortunately, the radicals are aware of this which is why they attack those who are actually willing to educate the ignorant or, alternatively, those who want to be educated as you see in Afghanistan. They deliberately attack and kill school children so they can blame the 'invaders' and show that any co-operaton with them is a deadly mistake; scare tactics.

Edited by Rayburn, 02 January 2009 - 21:12.

[BeefJeRKy]

I guess I worded it incompletely. I meant placing Israel over Palestine wasn't a particularly good idea. In fact, I believe a location in Europe was also proposed early on though I am unsure of this.

[AZZKIKR]

well, my opinion on the latest gaza crisis is that the military should not have attacked. 4 israeli's are dead, 420 palestinians dead. the israelis say that if they shoud live in fear, so should those in gaza. but isn't 1 israeli death/105 palestinians dead is no means using fear tactics. Well, honestly although hamas was wrong to fire rockets and motars, shouldn't the idf ONLY target them, and not try to destroy the hamas government, living an area leaderless?

[BeefJeRKy]

Problem is Hamas is the people

[Zero]

Yup, we Westerners ARE at fault, the Americans probably the most out of all of us. Does anyone know how the place was chosen? I'm guessing that the Jews wouldn't have accepted any other place (although maybe a place somewhat close) because of the significant value to their religion and history (it'd be like US losing NY/DC, its hard to comprehend as these are the centers of our country and have been for quite a while-NY since the immigration started)

Swimmer, on 2 Jan 2009, 19:52, said:

Zero, on 2 Jan 2009, 12:10, said:

Well...I'm not sure where to start. I think that force shouldn't be applied on the Muslim countries, but on Israel itself. The UN should undo what it did and take back some of the conquered land, and split what is left between the Pals and Isr's. The US, unfortunately, is too weak (financially) to fight another war because of this huge waste of money we call Iraq (just make damn Hydrogen Fuel Cell!!), which sucks, here's why: when the Israel became a country, they were already prepared for war, which happened almost instantly, how? Well, they used their power in the lobby to not only get Israel through US& UN, but also HUGE amounts of weapons (such as Jets, Tanks, Guns, and so on), this comes from an American who loves his country: we FUCKED UP! BIG TIME! Not only the government but also the people who did nothing to protest or fight en-masse because we were so guilt ridden at the time (do to anti-semmitism during AND after AND before WWII).

How do I propose we do this the most efficiently? Simply put, we can actually go up to the UN and form a REAL international militia (a world army...like the order of the black knights *grin*-I like that idea because it could REALLY help discourage wars). We can use this militia to press Israel, unfortunately, if it turns out they DO have nukes (which is REALLY likely), then we might be fucked..... However, if military force doesn't work then we could always use Covert Ops to deal with the problem, but that is cowardly, and may result in a war fought against the wrong enemy for the wrong reasons.

We can't let them fight it out either, someday they'll run out of people to fight and use nukes, and if they drop about 10 nukes...nuclear winter! FOR EVERYONE! ALL AROUND THE WORLD!

No, actually, I think that we can use guerilla tactics (remember the Vietcong?). Afterall, a dessert gives a LOT of hiding opportunities with the right gear along with a small militarized force AND political savvy (although I'm not sure what this would be). Also, to keep down the chance of a nuke war (hopefully they aren't Belkans and won't drop 4 nukes in their own territory...) the military force should be kept anonymous, use common gear that could link it to at least 10 other countries, that way if Israel tried to fight EVERY possible enemy, they'd be stretched to thin. I see Russian weapons all around with highly trained crews trained by the Ruskies or US. Aircraft-wise, however, I think US should handle, stealth would ensure that only a handful can do PLENTY of damage; I recommend F-35s (which are being sent to a load of other countries as well, along with a FEW F-22s), and maybe some B-2s every once in a while. The guerillas should be trained by experts...probably a combination of SVR (if is a fragment of what KGB was)-sorry if I'm mixing it up with other intel agency- and CIA, as well as some mercenaries. Actually, I suggest we hire PLENTY of mercenaries, to lead the guerillas and train them with Special Ops forces which we lightly insert into both the militarized force. Unfortunately, guerilla forces tend to be volatile, so they too should be made up of a coalition of soldier that are fighting for the same end-goal (not potentially bias locals). Then we can push them against a wall and offer assistance from US and so on, and if they agree (which to do they must return the land they took and give palestine back its rights as a country) then we can quickly make away with the force, of course, the last part has to be executed well enough to make sure there are VERY FEW casualties and unnecessary injuries.

I think that is the lesser of two evils....

Excuse if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting we should remove Israel as a political and military entity? Or are you saying we should starve them from Military Capability, and leave them at the hands of Arab nations that want little more than to kill them in as slow a way as possible? Between the sheer intolerance your exhibiting just in saying that (I'm sorry, but I've never found the idea of leaving people to die as tolerant) and the facts you have wrong (it wasn't until the '60s that the US began arming Israel- Britain was their benefactor in the beginning), I honestly don't know what to say. Seriously, are you really suggesting that the US and Russia hire mercenaries to destroy Israel? I'm sorry, but what is your problem with Israel?

I'M sorry. My bad, I think you misunderstood me, I didn't mean either...completely. Simply put, we have to put pressure on Israel, I don't believe that this will EVER work out peacefully-GOD DAMN POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!! What I meant was pressuring Israel, pretty much FORCING them to sign a treaty, and then set them on a somewhat probation-like period. First, of course, we should propose peace, but if not, an armed force that seems to come from nowhere would seem to work. Of course, during the probation-like period we would give them some protection as they build up their military, and if they want to start another conflict and conquer land that isn't rightfully theirs (although I do understand they were attacked first and they took the land for self-defense, but WHY would they keep it for so long, they should just give it back and end it!), then we can just remove Israel as a foreign power, of course, we'd have to evacuate any nuclear weapons/tech/scientists as well as the common people, but the "second assault" is something that should never happen, the Jews tend to learn from their mistakes.

Again, I have nothing against Israel, and I am not saying DESTROY it, or leave it HELPLESS. I'm saying putting them against a corner, and helping them back up (somewhat like what we did with the South in the American Civil War, we protected them and helped them reconstruct). Of course, their WILL be a loss of life, but as much as I hate to say it, sometimes violence is the only viable way, I do not want my children facing a possible nuclear holocaust because of a war about some stupid land.

Again, I do NOT HATE the Jewish or Israel. Also I am NOT a warmonger. I just believe Israel should give back what isn't rightfully theirs and stay on the land they were given by the UN (which is still technically stolen land). For the last time, I am simply saying force a treaty, get the stolen land back to its own people (many of whom now live in refugee camps), help them survive for a few years until they can stand on their own feet, monitor them a few more years/decades to ensure they only defend self (like we are doing with Japan and Self-Defense Force) and then hope they'll be good neighbors.

NOTE: btw, when I said Belkans I do NOT mean Balkans. I'm referring to the Belkans in Ace Combat 5 who dropped four nukes on their own soil to try to stop the advance of the two enemy countries, but in the end, it only ended up forcing them up against a wall and forcing a peace treaty on them where they lost almost everything. Just wanted to say that in case anyone got offended and thought I had meant something else.

[Libains]

It would be fair to say that this can be seen from both sides.

On the one hand, the current state of Israel is such that it places little if any value on the views of the world, or it's political bodies. This stems back to its creation, and the work put into the country by the UN, and by the United States of America. Regardless of the credit crunch currently hitting the country, the USA is still an immense superpower, and is feared/respected by most countries in the world. Harking back to the creation of the Israeli state, the USA has had a large input, enforcing their position as one of the best, if not the best, ally that Israel has. The strategic placement of Israel in a volatile region of the world has given the USA the foothold they need, and a friendly country to assist in the region, or even act as a buffer should the need be. The worth of the country is not underestimated by the US administration, and because of this, the country is sweetened. While I am not a military hardware buff, and will never claim to be one, I do know that Israel possesses weapons of the highest quality from the American military, which they were able to purchase for a reduced price, as part of the USA arming the friendly nation. Furthermore, the USA will want to keep the country friendly, hence why they have abstained from openly criticising them, I believe. Hence, the Israelis see this as international immunity, and so far into the conflict, this has been shown by the international community, which while condemning them, has made no action to prevent the deaths of some innocents. However, the Israelis have the right to fight for their country, and cannot really be condoned for doing so. Admittedly, I'd rather they didn't do so much collateral damage, and leave Gaza in tatters, but their right to return fire is certainly there, it's been done before by neighboring countries, and will be done again. It should be mentioned however, that once Israel pushes forward with a ground offensive, all hell will break out in Gaza, with likely more Israelis dying, as Hamas will use guerrilla warfare, and the city is a perfect place to ambush soldiers, left, right and centre. Hence, I'd continue with precision strikes from the air or from over the border, but not enter the country, as it will cause all sorts of havoc, and result in an increase in the number of deaths. Furthermore, they can never defeat Hamas, as pointed out by Scope, they are the people, and for every one that you kill, two will avenge him, and for every leader killed another will rise. It is practically impossible to fight a cause such as this, as it plays upon the underprivileged people's lack of knowledge and faith in their religion. It cannot be beaten into submission, just dented, and that dent will cost the Israelis more of their lives.

On the other hand, from the perspective of Hamas, the Israelis are likely playing right into their hands. It's obvious that they can never destroy the entire might of the Israeli state or army, but they can damage it, but not through paltry long range attacks, they just serve as an incentive for the Israeli military to invade. As mentioned above, once the military wade in, they are in foreign territory, and lack the strategic advantage, and Hamas can call upon it's followers to appear all over the city in an instance, in great numbers. Of course, there is an underlying hatred for the Israelis that stems to the 'stolen land' issue. This is an old wound, but the Palestinians still feel robbed - I can relate to that - Bolivia lost it's coastline to Chile 150 odd years ago and still feels the pain of the loss - so much so that the uneducated native people revolted against the President and forced him into exile. And that was after a proposal to put a gas pipeline from Bolivia to Chile, to deliver $3bn of oil and gas to California. Needless to say, it cost the Bolivian people. As an aside, my Dad instigated pretty much all of it - was an interesting few weeks. Back to the matter at hand - Palestinians will feel the pain for many more years, and their hatred will not change. As such, anything they can do to hurt Israel and her people is OK by them, and rebellious groups do not heed any form of international opinion and will likely fight the UN should they choose to send in troops to keep the peace. Even an education for the Palestinians will not be enough to stem the bloodloss to be frank, as the leaders of Hamas play upon religion as much as they do upon the lack of education, and religion will make people do extreme things - look at what the pilots of the September 11th attacks did in the name of religion.

In my opinion, there can never be an end to this war, as each side will continue to fight for what the feel is right. I'm not being a pessimist at all, as it's fair to say that I'd like to see all wars stopped tomorrow, for good, but that will not happen. I seriously cannot see a way out of this for either side, as Hamas will always be provocative, and Israel will always respond.

A few notes on what others have posted. Firstly, Zero, this is a political area, 'God-damn politicians' doesn't say much from my point of view. Secondly, a treaty will never be forced upon a country, as there will likely be more international outrage at bullying an entire country than there currently is at the war.

I hope for peace here, but I cannot see it in my lifetime beyond a nuclear strike and that just leads to more serious issues than petty wars.

[Dauth]

Some interesting points raised so far, while I have not applied myself to coming up with a solution as yet, some observations and comments.

Letting them battle it out would quite possibly enter into a large war encompassing the entire area, which with Oil going nuts will harm the economy of the West no end. This doesn't sound viable to me in all honesty.

Advocating war, or any military action won't go down well. Essentially I see a bias against religion being met with an axe just as bloody as any other weapon. There are sometimes I agree when force is necessary, however forcing people to behave peacefully removes their rights to protest and its a slipperly slope to a dictatorship form there. The idea of another nuclear detonation is ludicrous, not even the US would be able to say "This is right", and it wouldn't matter since their base in the Middle East would now be radioactive anyway.

Is creating a country for any people based on their religion a good idea? Does that promote the secularism that is a requirement for being in the EU? The secularism that has allowed development of medicines? Of power plants? Or public transport? Or a thousand other measures that have improved the world? Yes I'm sure a few people have lost their way without religion, but for the majority, isn't secularism wise?

Moderator instruction
Zero, I suggest in the future you don't let anger take over when posting and that you keep your points concise as opposed to walls of text which are difficult to read.
Secondly re read anything before you post, making sure it can't be misconstrued
Thirdly, only refer to bits of culture if they are truly all permeating, I for example have never player any of the Ace Combat series. An example would be me making a comment on Blake's 7.

[Zero]

I am not speaking in anger nor without thinking. I'm also not advocating a military conflict nor dropping nukes. This conflict can only end one way: violently, I doubt it'll EVER end peacefully. When I said dropped nukes, I did not mean we use it to our advantage. I also am not advocating against religion. What I stated was simply that the US and UN did it really out of guilt for WWII and ages of antisemitism as well as money taken from the Jewish Lobby. I actually meant the opposite. What I said was that hopefully they will not drop nukes on their own lands.

I also was sure to specify that most of the equipment is something seen in many countries to make sure that if they ever attempted to fight back, they'd end up fighting more countries than they can handle, so they probably won't, instead focusing on defense. Also, I said keep the fight IN Israel so the chance of their using nukes drastically drops, after all, most countries would NEVER use nukes on their own land, especially if the troops near the capital. F-22s I suggested should be spread VERY thin to make sure that they can't be identified, of course, nothing must leave alive, which shouldn't be too hard anyway, and with Smartskin on them, they should be almost impossible to spot from the ground at high altitudes; also, they would be more of a "rescue" unit than mass combat.

Another thing I did was to specify that the treaty would work simply, Israel can accept American/Western help, if not within the alloted time, then we pull out our troops and let them handle themselves, whether they are powerful enough to survive, or cave. Either way, we wouldn't allow genocide to happen, if the situation gets bad enough we could still go in and stop it before it's too late, but either way, Israel will probably still be too weak to fight on and try to regain lost land. After that we can pull a Japan and put it under...surveillance? I can't think of the correct word. I do not advocate nuclear warfare, that would be bad for ME and EVERYONE else on the planet, I am saying we use Conventional Warfare under circumstances that will make nuclear warfare the most unlikely possible.

Also, I am advocating this for a few reasons:
-First of all, a few years of conflict will result in much lower death toll than several more decades/centuries of fighting. This current war has no seeming end, it needs a push to end. Sure, people will die, but I think that the fact that the death toll will be reduced during the "peace time" is somewhat worth it.

-Second, as oil starts to run out, and every country is going to be racing to find oil to feed their people, and more importantly, their war machine. Countries such as Israel will start to fight for the oil, and if it comes down to it (which it probably will) nukes will be used to try to save oneself/lower own casualties/threaten countries into submission. I can't access wiki at the moment for some reason but if Israel's economy also depends on oil, then it will also rush for oil/defend own oil. This is important because with already tight tensions existing amongst the middle-eastern country, war will only be propagated, and nuclear holocaust only more so.

-Wars should never be fought. If they are, however, I think that it should be ONLY because there is a good and viable cost behind it (such as freedom from oppression/self-defense/etc.). I would rather fight a war to end a never ending set of wars and proxy wars than watch as people are slaughtered walking to school.

-If we do this, it'll allow us to take away their nukes either way. Israel would rather have its nukes taken by a western country than by a middle-eastern country that hates them (which unfortunately is most of it). Also, although I believe the "I can have nukes but you can't," line is hypocritical, I REALLY do not want to see nukes in middle-east as the area is VERY volatile and terrorist factions are blossoming there, many hate the Jews and Westerners, so having it fall into their hands, or even the hands of the other countries that could then supply it to terrorists/guerillas and can't keep it safe enough from gangs/black markets/terrorists, so they'll be stolen (most can't spend millions and billions on housing and safety features)

Again, I do not hate Israel, nor do I love war (actually I hate the damn thing). Also, sorry for the long posts but I cannot think of a way of making them shorter without losing what I want to say.

Oh, btw Dauth, what is Blake's Seven? I've never heard of it....

[Alias]

Zero, on 3 Jan 2009, 17:52, said:

Another thing I did was to specify that the treaty would work simply, Israel can accept American/Western help, if not within the alloted time, then we pull out our troops and let them handle themselves, whether they are powerful enough to survive, or cave. Either way, we wouldn't allow genocide to happen, if the situation gets bad enough we could still go in and stop it before it's too late, but either way, Israel will probably still be too weak to fight on and try to regain lost land. After that we can pull a Japan and put it under...surveillance? I can't think of the correct word. I do not advocate nuclear warfare, that would be bad for ME and EVERYONE else on the planet, I am saying we use Conventional Warfare under circumstances that will make nuclear warfare the most unlikely possible.

That is incredibly laughable. Google the Six Day War and find out why. Israel is ridiculously stronger than anything else in the Middle East.

Zero, on 3 Jan 2009, 17:52, said:

-If we do this, it'll allow us to take away their nukes either way. Israel would rather have its nukes taken by a western country than by a middle-eastern country that hates them (which unfortunately is most of it). Also, although I believe the "I can have nukes but you can't," line is hypocritical, I REALLY do not want to see nukes in middle-east as the area is VERY volatile and terrorist factions are blossoming there, many hate the Jews and Westerners, so having it fall into their hands, or even the hands of the other countries that could then supply it to terrorists/guerillas and can't keep it safe enough from gangs/black markets/terrorists, so they'll be stolen (most can't spend millions and billions on housing and safety features)

Why should anybody have nukes? They should not be taken, they should be destroyed, along with all other nuclear weapons. There might be insane "terrorists" in the Middle East, but there are also plenty of insane Conservatives in the West.

Zero, on 3 Jan 2009, 17:52, said:

Oh, btw Dauth, what is Blake's Seven? I've never heard of it....

That was exactly his point, he was telling you to not make obscure references to culture that we do not know of (Ace Combat, in your case).

Edited by Alias, 03 January 2009 - 07:23.

[Zero]

Alias, on 3 Jan 2009, 8:23, said:

Zero, on 3 Jan 2009, 17:52, said:

Another thing I did was to specify that the treaty would work simply, Israel can accept American/Western help, if not within the alloted time, then we pull out our troops and let them handle themselves, whether they are powerful enough to survive, or cave. Either way, we wouldn't allow genocide to happen, if the situation gets bad enough we could still go in and stop it before it's too late, but either way, Israel will probably still be too weak to fight on and try to regain lost land. After that we can pull a Japan and put it under...surveillance? I can't think of the correct word. I do not advocate nuclear warfare, that would be bad for ME and EVERYONE else on the planet, I am saying we use Conventional Warfare under circumstances that will make nuclear warfare the most unlikely possible.

That is incredibly laughable. Google the Six Day War and find out why. Israel is ridiculously stronger than anything else in the Middle East.

Actually, I already knew that. That's why I made out that whole strategy(although it is still VERY unrefined). For this to work western support is NEEDED, although only air support should be necessary, if you have air cover, the rest should be pretty damn easy (specially if you have choppers- they would use Hinds which are found ALL around the world- and the enemy can't shoot them down with an AA missile on land.

Quote

Zero, on 3 Jan 2009, 17:52, said:

-If we do this, it'll allow us to take away their nukes either way. Israel would rather have its nukes taken by a western country than by a middle-eastern country that hates them (which unfortunately is most of it). Also, although I believe the "I can have nukes but you can't," line is hypocritical, I REALLY do not want to see nukes in middle-east as the area is VERY volatile and terrorist factions are blossoming there, many hate the Jews and Westerners, so having it fall into their hands, or even the hands of the other countries that could then supply it to terrorists/guerillas and can't keep it safe enough from gangs/black markets/terrorists, so they'll be stolen (most can't spend millions and billions on housing and safety features)

Why should anybody have nukes? They should not be taken, they should be destroyed, along with all other nuclear weapons. There might be insane "terrorists" in the Middle East, but there are also plenty of insane Conservatives in the West.

I see you point, however, I doubt they would be. I say that we dismantle them and use the warheads for nuclear reactor fuel (like we do with Ruskie ones).

Quote

Zero, on 3 Jan 2009, 17:52, said:

Oh, btw Dauth, what is Blake's Seven? I've never heard of it....

That was exactly his point, he was telling you to not make obscure references to culture that we do not know of (Ace Combat, in your case).

Oh, k, I get it....sorry. I thought he meant it as an example of what SHOULD be used.

[Dutchygamer]

Maybe a very stupid suggestion, but how hard is it to just merge the 2 countries? Here in Holland there are also 5124 different religions together in one country...
And yes, that number was made up, just as an example

[CommanderJB]

Well... it's a tough one. In another wonderful coincidence I've just come from arguing this at another forum, which at least makes this a little easier because I already know what I'm going to say. All points below are opinion only.

Question 1: Should Israel have been created, or at least created where it is in the first place?
Answer: I don't give a stuff. We have to live with what happened in 1948 and I really can't be bothered spending the hours required to go through all the political, international, cultural, geopolitical and moral issues that were swirling around there. Nor apparently could anyone else.

Question 2: Is Israel to blame for the starting the terrorism directed at it?
Answer: No. Most of it is generated by fundamentalist groups that disagree with the general idea of Israel in the first place and wouldn't change their mind even if the Israelis stopped bombing them and delivered two truckloads of chocolate and roses weekly.

Question 3: Are the Palestinians to blame for attacking Israel?
Answer: No. Would you be particularly impressed if you were sent packing from your homeland by a bunch of people from the other side of the world who are ideologically opposed to you and most of the stuff you stand for, then forced to live in a tiny, packed urban slum where what little infrastructure you have gets razed on a yearly basis? Probably not.

Question 4: Is the UN/US/UK to blame for the whole situation?
Pretty much, although each side has blood on their hands and generally seems to aim to make the problem worse at every given opportunity. But since the US and UK aren't going to do anything about it, whatever their moral obligation, they're not really a part of a solution.

Question 5: What should be done to solve the conflict?
Answer: If I knew this I'd win the Nobel peace prize and also succeed where people have failed for two millennia. Suffice to say that's not particularly likely to happen. However, I do have a couple of views which I will first disclaim as hopeless idealism which will never come into practice.

Idea 1: Use technology to deny terrorism a chance to disrupt the peace process.
This basically centres around using THEL or a similar C-RAM system to stop any Palestinian group from firing rockets at Israel. The general idea is that rockets that don't hit aren't as bad. Unfortunately it's still terrorism but hey, I said this was hopeless idealism.

Idea 2: Stop bombing Gaza and the West Bank.
Terrorism thrives on hatred and disadvantage. Bombing creates hatred and disadvantage. Need I say more?

Idea 3: Provide reconstruction aid to Palestinian territories.
This is in order to lessen disadvantage in the hope of restoring centrist values. Without centrist values and support peace goes nowhere.

Idea 4: Get governments which accept the two-state solution.
In order to create lasting peace you need people at the head of both Israel and Palestine are not going to go away any time soon and need accepted boundaries, borders and integrity to begin with. Unfortunately a ceasefire needs to come - and stay for a while - first before people will ever talk rationally about borders and integrity.

More to come later.

[Libains]

Well I was discussing this a little further with Dauth last night, and there's still not much to go on as to how to possibly create a solution from this mess of a conflict. The only possibility with any chance of any form of success would be to create a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) around the Gaza strip, as neither side will give up the fight if not restrained. This DMZ would be manned by troops from the UN, and as such apply to everyone aside from those troops. This, however, while the least idealistic of all possibilities, is still idealistic, as it is not enforceable, and would likely result in the deaths of more soldiers and civilians.

Gaza is a territory held by a terrorist organisation, and as such holds no real diplomatic status as being a state belonging to Hamas. It is technically still a part of the main state of Palestine, but it simple cannot be it's own state - Hamas have no right to the area anymore than say, Russia would. However, the people deserve to live there, and therin lies the problem - the people who are Hamas deserve a home, but Hamas have no right to be there. So
perhaps it is time to move the people on from Gaza - it bears little relevance to the Palestinians, compared to other sites such as Jerusalem.

So, a proposal: Annex Gaza back into Israel. By removing the any suspected terrorists from the region, and immediately deporting any that later prove to be/suspected to be, the Israelis can reclaim Gaza and bring peace to the region - any Palestinians that wish to stay may stay, but must integrate. This will also lessen the burden on Egypt eg their issues with the border patrols, and reduce the number of attacks by Hamas hitting the region massively. This will in return benefit the Palestinian government, as it removes Hamas from the current state and forces them to join a peacefl government, or be extinguished. However, to make this fair, the Israelis should cede complete dominance over Jerusalem and the surrounding area, making it a corpus separatum, or an international city, as was proposed at the original time of Israel's conception, which was then rejected by the Jews. Thus, the Israelis cede their capital city, in return for peace in the Gaza area. Furthermore, an area between Israel and Palestine should be made a DMZ, with an equal section being given over to this from both countries. Finally, in payment for displacing Palestinian citizens, the Israeli state should provide accommodation for them in Palestine, or pay for their placement. That is obviously negotiable, however, and depends upon other factors. However, the plan, I feel, is reasonably solid, but has details that could do with sorting. While it would not end the violence, it would decrease it massively, and do a favour for Palestine too, and make them better in the eyes of the international community, for having helped end Hamas' regime, or at least the violent side.

If all else fails though, the main question that has to be asked is as such: how does an international entity prevent two rival states from fighting, when they are right next to each other. Beyond threatening with extreme military force, which won't happen, what can be done?

[Zero]

Dutchygamer, on 3 Jan 2009, 12:34, said:

Maybe a very stupid suggestion, but how hard is it to just merge the 2 countries? Here in Holland there are also 5124 different religions together in one country...
And yes, that number was made up, just as an example

Unfortunately, tensions there are so tight (both religiously and ethnically), that it would be suicide. Simply put, I mean this: if we merged the two states (which I doubt either state would EVER allow, unfortunately) then civil war would most likely break out, and also the war would probably end with the Pals winning as they outnumber them and the government will probably end up being run by them. Also if you DID join them, another problem would be probably religious oppression (trying to push one's religion/religious laws on another; example:a Saudi-Arabian Muslim impressing it's laws on an American Protestant). So, I believe joining them wouldn't work, not while tensions are this...tense.

Neither Israel nor Palestine are to blame for this, I think. The Jews wanted a place to call their own, okay, but the UN was stupid enough to surround it in places that HATED the Jewish people. Then there were the wars, and although I agree that it was fought in self-defense, I don't really like it that the Israelis are keeping the land, but if they keep it, they should at least be more fair towards their Arabian bretheren.

JB I also like your ideas, and as much as I'd like to see this happen peacefully and in that way I doubt it will.
1-Actually that would work. Simply put, less casualties, less tensions-theoretically.

2-Again, like it, but the problem is that Israel probably it HAS to retaliate to make sure no one screws with it. This is like what happened during the Vietnam War, the US didn't want to lose the war -partly- because they felt that if they did surrender, it would tell the world that it was weak and could not fight communism. Israel, already hated by its neighbors, probably believes it HAS to look tough to survive because if they don't then the other countries might see it as a sign of weakness and try to attack again.
^I've read this several times over, but still am not sure if you might understand it the way it's phrased, so please ask if you don't understand.

3-Unfortunately, the people hate each other so much that they may NOT accept the help. If Israel does this, I guess it would have to be with a group of younger Pals who don't remember these days of war. So even if it is offered, they might not take it (some nations have does because of pride, they believe that it makes them look weak and whatnot-to accept help from an enemy I mean)

4-Well, my plan of action includes this (more or less). However, I doubt they will EVER stop fighting. They hated each other before, and this only brought it to surface in a much more violent way and made the tensions rise even further. Even if that happens, the boundaries themselves will also be frequently disputed (especially over the all-too-disputed religious hot spots). To combat this I can only suggest a dead-zone (a demilitarized zone owned by no one country having ownership of it) at those spots. Then if they complain about religion, well technically the Jewish people were there first, so..... But still, if they start to argue about it religiously...then I see no solution.

Personally, I'd rather see places that cause such conflict (like the Temple of the Mount, I think it's called) blown off the map. This is not as much religious, but, simply because I believe that they are a waste of space. True, history is invaluable and should be preserved, and I agree perfectly, I LOVE history, specially buildings and cities (an aspiring engineer here). The bad part, however, is that these people fight A LOT over some a rocky mountain with a temple on top of it, a war could (and I think did at one point) break out over things such as these. If these things are ahnnialated, then they can move on, of course it would be hard to find a time where it is empty enough, but it should happen sooner or later, and then an "unidentified cruise missile" (I doubt there's such a thing) will mystically appear, race towards the target, and it goes boom!

As much as I'd like to see the above happen to lessen the conflict over places to worship (which I think is just ludicrous), I do NOT want to see that happen, because it'll probably just result in higher tensions& paranoia. In the end, I think they should either learn to accept each other, share their land like good neighbors (and like both their scriptures say), OR tear down these places themselves to at least try to lessen the conflict.

EDIT: Just curious, but WHY did everyone else think I was mad before? Really, I wasn't.

Edited by Zero, 03 January 2009 - 22:57.

[Alias]

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

Neither Israel nor Palestine are to blame for this, I think. The Jews wanted a place to call their own, okay, but the UN was stupid enough to surround it in places that HATED the Jewish people. Then there were the wars, and although I agree that it was fought in self-defense, I don't really like it that the Israelis are keeping the land, but if they keep it, they should at least be more fair towards their Arabian bretheren.

The location of present day Israel is where it is because of HISTORICAL Israel.

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

Personally, I'd rather see places that cause such conflict (like the Temple of the Mount, I think it's called) blown off the map. This is not as much religious, but, simply because I believe that they are a waste of space. True, history is invaluable and should be preserved, and I agree perfectly, I LOVE history, specially buildings and cities (an aspiring engineer here). The bad part, however, is that these people fight A LOT over some a rocky mountain with a temple on top of it, a war could (and I think did at one point) break out over things such as these. If these things are ahnnialated, then they can move on, of course it would be hard to find a time where it is empty enough, but it should happen sooner or later, and then an "unidentified cruise missile" (I doubt there's such a thing) will mystically appear, race towards the target, and it goes boom!

Congratulations, you can now be classified as a terrorist... I don't care how much you bloody hate religion, but the temple mount is actually a well managed location with little conflict around it (compared to other things).

Edited by Alias, 04 January 2009 - 04:48.

[CommanderJB]

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

2-Again, like it, but the problem is that Israel probably it HAS to retaliate to make sure no one screws with it. This is like what happened during the Vietnam War, the US didn't want to lose the war -partly- because they felt that if they did surrender, it would tell the world that it was weak and could not fight communism. Israel, already hated by its neighbors, probably believes it HAS to look tough to survive because if they don't then the other countries might see it as a sign of weakness and try to attack again.
^I've read this several times over, but still am not sure if you might understand it the way it's phrased, so please ask if you don't understand.

Israel doesn't 'have' to retaliate any more than it 'has' to do anything. It just doesn't want to. If they would actually get it into their skulls that all that happens when you kill terrorists and their families is they become martyrs and get more support, they might start to see why it's better to stop bombing urban areas than do the thing which'll give them maximum national security brownie points in the next election.

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

3-Unfortunately, the people hate each other so much that they may NOT accept the help. If Israel does this, I guess it would have to be with a group of younger Pals who don't remember these days of war. So even if it is offered, they might not take it (some nations have does because of pride, they believe that it makes them look weak and whatnot-to accept help from an enemy I mean)

Someone will accept it, then more, and hopefully before long it'll start making positive effects. Unfortunately you'd probably just see an Afghanistan-like situation of people who accept help getting murdered by extremists but this is where moderate Arab nations could help with national security aid... if Israel would let them.

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

4-Well, my plan of action includes this (more or less). However, I doubt they will EVER stop fighting. They hated each other before, and this only brought it to surface in a much more violent way and made the tensions rise even further. Even if that happens, the boundaries themselves will also be frequently disputed (especially over the all-too-disputed religious hot spots). To combat this I can only suggest a dead-zone (a demilitarized zone owned by no one country having ownership of it) at those spots. Then if they complain about religion, well technically the Jewish people were there first, so..... But still, if they start to argue about it religiously...then I see no solution.

They've done it before for brief periods; they can do it again, they just don't want to at the moment. Currently neither party has any evidence their lives would be any better if they stopped fighting. It's up to both sides and external nations to prove that this isn't the case.

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

Personally, I'd rather see places that cause such conflict (like the Temple of the Mount, I think it's called) blown off the map. This is not as much religious, but, simply because I believe that they are a waste of space. True, history is invaluable and should be preserved, and I agree perfectly, I LOVE history, specially buildings and cities (an aspiring engineer here). The bad part, however, is that these people fight A LOT over some a rocky mountain with a temple on top of it, a war could (and I think did at one point) break out over things such as these. If these things are ahnnialated, then they can move on, of course it would be hard to find a time where it is empty enough, but it should happen sooner or later, and then an "unidentified cruise missile" (I doubt there's such a thing) will mystically appear, race towards the target, and it goes boom!

Congratulations, you've just started a holy war which will probably end up going nuclear.

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

EDIT: Just curious, but WHY did everyone else think I was mad before? Really, I wasn't.

Probably because you tend to use a rather aggressive tone and a fair few capitals. I'd suggest taking a step back occasionally. What you've done is not bad by any means but making sure your text doesn't carry unnecessary strength or vehemence is probably not a bad idea. For example, use italics instead of caps lock for stress without aggression.

[Dutchygamer]

And as expected: Israel has started a ground offensive

[Zero]

@Alias: I think you're missing the point. First of all, it's not cause I hate religion, secondly, I am no terrorist, I said I'd like to see them do it themselves more than anything else (doubt they ever will). My point was simply that those places start conflict. WARS have been fought over that land (not actually there because it'd be stupid to fight and damage near the place want. Also, that place sparks Pal-Isr conflicts (in the 90s/80s a Jewish politician just visited a holy place of Islam (which also happened to be holy to the Jewish) it sparked conflict again and it came back monumentally more powerful.
Also, I know it's in HISTORICAL Israel, but it's also where they are hated the most. In other words, if they hadn't procured so many weapons, they'd be extinct right now.

CommanderJB, on 4 Jan 2009, 6:15, said:

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

2-Again, like it, but the problem is that Israel probably it HAS to retaliate to make sure no one screws with it. This is like what happened during the Vietnam War, the US didn't want to lose the war -partly- because they felt that if they did surrender, it would tell the world that it was weak and could not fight communism. Israel, already hated by its neighbors, probably believes it HAS to look tough to survive because if they don't then the other countries might see it as a sign of weakness and try to attack again.
^I've read this several times over, but still am not sure if you might understand it the way it's phrased, so please ask if you don't understand.

Israel doesn't 'have' to retaliate any more than it 'has' to do anything. It just doesn't want to. If they would actually get it into their skulls that all that happens when you kill terrorists and their families is they become martyrs and get more support, they might start to see why it's better to stop bombing urban areas than do the thing which'll give them maximum national security brownie points in the next election.

I'm not saying it HAS to retaliate, I'm saying it probably believes it has to (and by they I mean politicians) to try to make themselves look like the tough kid on the block so they didn't get picked on. It's something seen quite a bit in history. I agree, if they stopped bombing and whatnot, they'd get a LOT more supporters from Muslim countries.

Quote

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

3-Unfortunately, the people hate each other so much that they may NOT accept the help. If Israel does this, I guess it would have to be with a group of younger Pals who don't remember these days of war. So even if it is offered, they might not take it (some nations have does because of pride, they believe that it makes them look weak and whatnot-to accept help from an enemy I mean)

Someone will accept it, then more, and hopefully before long it'll start making positive effects. Unfortunately you'd probably just see an Afghanistan-like situation of people who accept help getting murdered by extremists but this is where moderate Arab nations could help with national security aid... if Israel would let them.

Hopefully, but, again, this would be the much younger generations who don't have as much against Israel. I never said it's impossible, but between terrorism and hate where they are now, I doubt it'll happen too prolifically and if it does it'll probably be suppressed. Now, if you deal with the terrorists FIRST, then it'd work

Quote

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

4-Well, my plan of action includes this (more or less). However, I doubt they will EVER stop fighting. They hated each other before, and this only brought it to surface in a much more violent way and made the tensions rise even further. Even if that happens, the boundaries themselves will also be frequently disputed (especially over the all-too-disputed religious hot spots). To combat this I can only suggest a dead-zone (a demilitarized zone owned by no one country having ownership of it) at those spots. Then if they complain about religion, well technically the Jewish people were there first, so..... But still, if they start to argue about it religiously...then I see no solution.

They've done it before for brief periods; they can do it again, they just don't want to at the moment. Currently neither party has any evidence their lives would be any better if they stopped fighting. It's up to both sides and external nations to prove that this isn't the case.

Yes, they can, however, it seems both countries want the land to themselves (although the Pals just seem to want their land back while the Isr want to keep all the land they've pretty much stolen). They can, but neither will stop long enough to negotiate. Of course, they have stopped fighting before, but the most effective way for them is also the most effective in the world:a war that will force them to come together (it's brought together a countless amount of nations, even if they hated it before). War brings unity, and outside of some kind of conflict to force them to agree to or come together, I doubt it'll happen in the real world.

Quote

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

Personally, I'd rather see places that cause such conflict (like the Temple of the Mount, I think it's called) blown off the map. This is not as much religious, but, simply because I believe that they are a waste of space. True, history is invaluable and should be preserved, and I agree perfectly, I LOVE history, specially buildings and cities (an aspiring engineer here). The bad part, however, is that these people fight A LOT over some a rocky mountain with a temple on top of it, a war could (and I think did at one point) break out over things such as these. If these things are ahnnialated, then they can move on, of course it would be hard to find a time where it is empty enough, but it should happen sooner or later, and then an "unidentified cruise missile" (I doubt there's such a thing) will mystically appear, race towards the target, and it goes boom!

Congratulations, you've just started a holy war which will probably end up going nuclear.

As I've stated above, THAT is the reason why I would like them to decide to do it themselves (didn't i state that in that paragraph?-No, I did it in the next one to be clear).

Quote

Zero, on 4 Jan 2009, 5:06, said:

EDIT: Just curious, but WHY did everyone else think I was mad before? Really, I wasn't.

Probably because you tend to use a rather aggressive tone and a fair few capitals. I'd suggest taking a step back occasionally. What you've done is not bad by any means but making sure your text doesn't carry unnecessary strength or vehemence is probably not a bad idea. For example, use italics instead of caps lock for stress without aggression.

Sorry, I tend to use capitals because I would use them so much, they would take up WAY too much time. I'll try to use it more after this post. Is there a keyboard shortcut to using italicized on here? On my old computer Ctrl+i worked, but not anymore.

[AZZKIKR]

Honestly, i doubt the US will ask israel to stop, as the us considers hamas a terrorist organisation, and they would support israel, even when it's the agressor. Plus every law, from the geneva convention to the UN, states NO BOMBING OF CIVILIANS, which has been done. Honestly, i find israel feeding the fuels of war. hamas started the fuse. Israel, with a military armed with tanks, planes, artillery, are fighting a people armed with RPGs, AKs, and at best, a BRDM. 4 israeli deaths in comparison to palestine's 520. "proportion", that word does not exist in this war.

Wat israel could have done is to have a spread effect. Israel has a relatively high GDP, which israel could use to improve the standards of living in palestine. Palestine's HDI is 0.731, israel is 0.932. with israel's helping of palestine, people there would have no reason to detest israel, and it'd improve israel's standings in the muslim world