I think you can break it down further than that.

When Israel kills terrorists, we all cheer.

When Israel kills civilians, only GD cheers


Think about it....where the UK or the US have killed civilian non-combatants in conflict we face a significant backlash from across the board.  This is to be expected and we go out of our way to avoid inflicting civilian casualties.

People are simply applying the same principles to Israel and they are condemning the killing of civilians as sure as they would if it was the US, UK or any other nation that did it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians either, most people recognise that Hamas are also civilians as a human shield. People all recognise that Hamas have continually refused to adhere to ceasefires, have continued regardless of offers for talks, and refuse to take a step back and commit to a non-combative solution.  In fact, where Israel does undertake intelligence led targeting of hamas fighters and kills them without civilians being harmed, most of the world says "good shoot".

The problem is that while Israel is supposedly taking the fight to Hamas, they are killing rather large numbers of civilians in the processes.  This represents a huge propaganda coup for Hamas.  We hold Israel to a far higher standard than we expect from terrorist scum like Hamas, and that is an asymmetrical situation which Israel has to deal with just as we do.

The fact remains that the continued killing of civilians at the rate we have seen in Gaza over the last couple of weeks is not going to work in Israel's favour.  World opinion recognises that while Israel has a right to defend itself, the civilian loss of life represents a disproportionate use of unsuitable force where the collateral damage is far too high.

I doubt people believe much that Hamas says.  They allegedly posted up pics of the Fogel family and claimed they were victims of recent Israeli action - hardly reputable as a source.

I have no doubt that Hamas will lie through their teeth as part of the propaganda war, but there have been a lot of civilian casualties according to independent witnesses.

Neither you nor I know the proportion of civilians/combatants that have been killed. I doubt we will ever know an accurate figure.

If you have reason to disbelieve the independent sources than I'd be interested to know why.  Having said that, there has just been a senior Israeli commander on BBC News as I type this who has admitted that high civilian casualties have been caused due to the difficult nature of the fighting.  He made some very valid points about Hamas and their tactics which should hopefully help put a little more balance into the debate when looking at the actions of Hamas in this conflict, but when challenged about the damaging effects of the civilian casualties on the Israeli cause he knew he was on difficult grounds.

Aw bless........you still here?

You are like a little quote machine.  Googling frantically in an effort to get noticed.

I hope that's not the case; can you point out examples of that?



It would really tick me off to think that anyone celebrates the deaths of innocent civilians.



 

Man - you haven't even provided a source, yet any source *I* have provided you dismiss. How does that work?



 

He's probably a recent Muslim immigrant. Nothing to see here...

Or....he's having an emotional reaction to what is happening in Gaza and mistakenly and unfairly vented on someone who is nothing to do with the problems out there.  As stated.

I have an emotional reaction too, but it's not one that would have me instinctively deny care to an old Jewish woman who isn't from Israel. But that's just me...



[ETA] Not to mention that he was so emotional that he continued to stand by his remarks even as several other people called him to ask about the veracity of the story. That sure sounds like a spur-on-the-moment emotional reaction to me.





 

Who said anything about spur of the moment?  We have no idea whether that was the case or not, but even so, so what?

Surely you can see that people have been pissed off about what is happening for a long time....Anyone would think that only the Israelis  and Israeli supporters have the sole right to be pissed off the way some people go on, bit this clearly isn't the case, as we see when the violence escalates.  

That is the nature of conflict, it will cause people who side with either of the adversaries to respond unfavourable to those they perceive as being opposed tho their view, and sometimes act angrily on that basis.

I'm with you in that I think the guy was an asshat and should be sacked. Refusing treatment to an elderly lady thousands of miles away from any trouble because he was pissed off at when he perceived "her nation" to be doing is not acceptable behaviour.

Those two have been fighting for years and neither side is prepared to give an inch.  There are no rules to say that if we don't approve of asshattery that we should step in and try to fix it.  All it does is make you a target for both sides.  Probably why there has been no commitment of troops on the ground as it is.

If people want to step into the middle of that mess and try to broker a peace deal, then good lucky them.  

IMO the two opposing sides are going to have to sort themselves out and work out a peace deal themselves.  Only they can do it the they both face significant risks that should encourage them to move forward and defuse the situation.  I hope they do it sooner rather than later because like most people I don't wish to see people on either side being killed or in fear of constant attack.

Very poor reasoning there Sylvan.

Israel didn't own that territory in the first place......so in reality they gave up nothing.

They are however in the occupied territories at present, remain in dispute with the UN over those boundaries, and are facing attacks for remaining so......Those attacks form part of the reason for the Israelis remaining in those occupied territories, understandably to some extent.  Neither side is prepared to concede, so the fighting continues.

Maybe we should give back the Polish "occupied territories" back to Germany.



 

Really??....Ludicrous hyperbole?

Come on, Zhukov.  You are better than that.

1) Anyone who calls for nuking the middle east will be warned/banned.



2) In case you haven't noticed: This thread isn't about criticizing Israel.



 

Ludicrous hyperbole? Spare me.

 

Play nice, Sylvan. You are presuming to know what I am thinking and are trying to put words in my mouth.  You are wrong.

Have a look at this series of maps and decide for yourself.  Even if we take the 1967 De Facto Line after the Six Day War there has been a significant reduction since then in  the Palestinian Territories.




I appreciate it may hard for you to do so if you have essentially been fed one line for many years...but try to think neutrally.  You have a land that has traditionally been shared by two people who effectively lived together without real issue until 1947.  In 1947 a plan was proposed to divide the land up to territories for Israel and Palestinian people.  Whether that was a good idea or not is a matter great debate, but suffice it to say that it went down like a lead balloon.  Wars were fought and the net result is that territory previously shared has now become divided to the point where one side has 88% of the land and the other has 12% of the land.

Now you being 'Murican can surely appreciate that being forcefully occupied and being squeezed out of your land is something you would not take kindly to.  I wouldn't either.  On that basis , if you put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian you can probably see why they may be angry enough to elect Hamas as their leadership and persist in attacking what they see as a force unlawfully occupying their land.  Palestinians, without any meaningful way of fighting a real war, resort to guerrilla warfare to attack what they see as the occupiers.  Israel, naturally wants to defend itself and does so - as we would expect, and in doing so occupies more and more land.

So we end up in a position where one group has lost so much land in the last 70 years that they feel intensely aggrieved and take extreme action, as they perceive this is their only option and they are facing total loss......hence their attacks.  Israel feel the need to defend itself and in doing so occupies more and more land..... which is then built upon by hardliners who believe that Israel  has the only right to the land.

If anything you a probably right....... it't not that neither side will give an inch......it is more a case of the Palestinian territories losing plenty of inches, while Israel gains penny of inches.

I don't see any solution in the future is the current trend continues.....If anything, even if the land areas remain static as they are now, there will forever be a significant amount of anger and opposition that will result in Israeli and Palestinian lives being lost.

I know I won't change your mind on this and I have no desire to try - your views are your views and how they evolve is down to you alone, but if you cannot take five minutes to adopt a truly neutral approach to this and imagine what it is like from both sides of the conflict, then you may find yourself relying on a very one sided view of the what is happening.

In blue

Again you are failing in your interpretation of what I am saying.