I haven't posted here yet, have I? Allow me to join the pro-Palestine side. What Israel is doing has all the hallmarks of a disgusting theocracy bent on ethnic cleansing. The death tolls on each side say it all in my opinion.
If Israel really wanted to commit ethnic cleansing, they'd have killed far more people. I agree, Israel's going to far, but to call it ethnic cleansing is a grotesque exaggeration. If they really wanted to wipe out the Palestinians, why would they give warnings before their airstrikes?
As Israel has shown in the past, murder is not the important element of ethnic cleansing. You don't necessarily want lots of people dead (bad PR) you only want the bare minimum required to create terror and ultimately, flight.
Of course, this proves that Israel does not act in self-defence.
If Hamas launched guided missiles at Israeli hospitals and schools and killed even a fraction of those killed in the UN shelters, there would be immediate condemnation and no pussy-footing around the issue of "doesn't prove anything about their intentions" or "commendable restraint". Why the double standard, UP? Why does Israel get a slap on the wrist?
Because they were driven to these measures. It doesn't justify it, but it's important to note.
Driven by what, exactly? Israel has total control over the airspace and they collude with Egypt to not let any refugees out of the Gaza strip. This is straight-up ethnic cleansing and you apparently don't have the courage to say so.
By the fact that a flipping terrorist organization illegally seized power through violence.
Indeed. Hamas illegally and violently seized power at the ballot box. Fortunately, Israel had the foresight to provide Fatah with peace-guns to contest that election, peacefully, on the streets.
Speaking of ethnic cleansing, Hamas would definitely do it if they had the chance. Is it wrong for Israel to not want to give them that chance?
Irrelevant and meaningless. If France was the world super-power as the US is now, what would that be like? Who knows. Maybe they'd have stayed in Algeria. It is irrelevant to our issue now - what are the borders of the Palestinian state, does Israel have a right to annex part of it, ect - what Hamas would do with nuclear weapons they don't have and never will ever.
I disagree with the settlement policy. I want Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territory (with the exception of East Jerusalem). However, Hamas is not the solution.
I think this is your primary error. You basically agree with Hamas on the substance; Israel is the aggressor in the conflict. Any legitimate peace agreement must include an end to the settlements, and be essentially based on the 1967 Green Line, with some negotiation over the status of Jerusalem. Gaza must be able to import food.
So you accept the legitimacy of Hamas' position. Israel is in the wrong. You just disagree with the use of force in this conflict by anyone but the aggressors. If you were a pacifist, you could legitimately criticise Hamas' use of force, though with the addendum that they didn't start nor can they end the conflict and their use of force is far lesser than the aggressors'. You aren't a pacifist. It's pure double-standards in favour of the side you admit is wrong.
