...

Neither, because it would require a compromise from both side and by definition that means losing since you don't get what youy want and so far the reason they are in this conflict in the first place is because neither wants to lose.

Rhetorical?

both would.  At least those not engaged in agressive attacks.

(retaliation is not agressive, but defensive.)

What compromise would it take on Israel's side? What does Israel want to do that involves crossing the Gaza border? I cannot think of anything Israel might possible want to do that would involve crossing the Gaza border. From my point of view, if that border was perfectly sealed and nothing (no rockets or anything) could get through, I would be perfectly happy with the situation. (And you might think that it would be nice if people could still pass through the border to make use of Israel's healthcare system, but then too many terrorists have used that opportunity to smuggle bombs in.)

I disagree with your reasoning about why there is a conflict. Conflicts do not exist because two sides don't want to lose, conflicts exist because one side wants to win. Israel, and I say that as an ardent Zionist, would be perfectly happy with a draw. At any time during this conflict, from the very beginning to today, Israel was happy to accept an end of the conflict immediately without any changes of the status quo. That was true in 1948 before the original Arab attack (when Israel consisted mainly of the land the KNF had bought plus the Negev minus Jerusalem, most of which was already Jewish-owned), in 1967 when Jerusalem was divided between Israel and Jordan, and it is true today, when Israel controls all of Jerusalem, the West-Bank and the Golan. (Of course, a draw gets easier and easier for Israel, since the base situation changes with every win.)

Neither side wants to lose, that is correct; but that alone doesn't create conflict. I think conflicts exist because in every possible conflict there is one side that accepts neither loss nor draw.

 

Gedanken.

It's one of those thought experiments that makes people admit to themselves their true positions.

The other one I occasionally use is about dressing up as a Jew (with an Israeli flag) and visiting an Arab city vs dressing up as an Arab (with an Arab flag) and visiting an Israeli city.

Most people I have met who were, as they claimed, totally convinced that the Arabs want peace and that Israelis don't, suddenly had to admit that they wouldn't bet their lives on their conviction.

I would. (But then I have seen Arabs walk through Israeli cities demonstrating for the PLO. An they survived.)

I do not propose the bet any more where I offer to do exactly that in an Israeli city in exchange for my opponent doing the Arab city part because I don't want people to get killed over a bet.

 

Israel usually doesn't even go for retaliation but actually tries to destroy the rocket launcher installations and weapons depots. In contrast to what so many think, war is expensive and switching off the terrorists for a few days is cheaper than retaliating against a population. Bombs cost money, if they are build to hit specific things.

If both Israel and Gaza would be in favour of this border being closed as I propose here (although this is sadly impossible), then the border wouldn't have to be closed at all.

 

(I also came up with a more violent version of this idea. In that version the border would act as a tele-porter array, shifting all incoming rockets so they would hit Riyad, the capital of Saudi-Arabia. I wonder whether these rockets would still be perfectly acceptable resistance if they hit Saudi-Arabia.)

 

 

 

 

I like that one.  most of the time you just see fruitcakes dressing up in flags, but that would be a real statement (foolhardy, but real).  Besides, your knees probably would not look good in a flag.

That is more accurately what I meant.  Not necesssarily an eye for an eye, just removal of the finger from the eye.

The interesting thing is that this usually ends the discussion.

Turns out MOST people do not really believe the nonsense they say about Israel. Even "Palestinians" seem to trust Israel totally when they can use Israel's hospitals.

This reminds me of that Germany guy (from Berlin?) who commented on Utemia's blog regarding how our western governments are just bad as the communist governments and also control what people can say. He so totally trusted the western system that it didn't even occur to him not to make that statement.

And it's the same for Israel. So many say that Israel is evil and that Arabs just want peace, but just see whom they fear in an aircraft: the Hassidic Jew or the Muslim? And guess what, when they go the West-Bank to demonstrate and show "solidarity" with the "victims" they totally make use of Jewish-built Zionist airports. They don't fly via Amman. It's too expensive because it's not subsidised by millions of Zionist passengers.

 

That's an excellent comparison!

Add to that that removing the finger can mean cutting it off and it's perfect.

And guess what, if someone tries to poke your eye out ten times, he will lose ten fingers while you haven't even lost the eye. That's what "disproportional force" is.

 

That is a good example as well.  The only problem is their fingers are like shark's teeth - they grow back.

No, they don't.

And even if they would, that isn't the problem.

Much of the rest of the world thinks that while a Jew might have the right not to have his eye poked out, he would not have the right to cut off the finger of the one who pokes. That's the paciftsts

But even that is not the problem because Israel can deal with the fact that it must not hurt the poker's fingers.

The real problem is that there are too many people who think that the Jew either deserves to lose his eye or that he should lose it in  order to save the fingers of the attacker, especially when there are more fingers than eyes.

 

I meant more grow to take the place of the lost digits.  It is not a set number, but constantly changing until the mindset is changed.  But that is really beside your point, none of which I disagree with,

What I meant was that cutting off the fingers works. There is no infinite flood of terrorists replacing those who get caught.

The entire argument that, for example, invading Iraq and killing terrorists there somehow creates more terrorists just isn't true.

 

I agree - they were created regardless of those actions.  The actions do reduce the number, but as yet, have not eliminated them.

If anything terrorists are created by what people think we did, not by what we really did.

Liberals can claim that innocent people become terrorists because of what Israel (for example) does, but I still won't believe that Jews _really_ are the sond of pigs and dogs even though people become terrorists because they think that about Jews.

Terrorism is not a reaction to anything we did to those people. If it were, most Africans would be terrorists, because in contrast to the Muslim world, Africa really was screwed by the west.

Hatred is an irrational emotion, it is not caused by what was really done to people, it existed independently. Jews are most hated in places where people have never met a Jew and I certainly don't hate Americans despite the fact that you guys bombarded my (German) grand parents' house in Berlin.