Tragically it's all more complicated than anyone can really state, right? I mean, if you had a 30 book(10k pages a book) series solely on the conditions in the region of Palestine between 1930 and today you'd still have so much material to cut, you could limit all 30 books to only 1 sides POV.

The closest I see to shortcutting things, is trying view what is likely to happen in the future, and from that maybe what one might try and do.

The trouble being there's so little one can do. The reality is that Israeli military strength compared to Palestine is completely and entirely one sided, and thus Israel can and will do whatever it wishes to militarily. It's all their choice, period. In fairness to Israel, you have to note that Hamas as stated in their own charter, given that same power would've already cleansed the entirety of Israel and have created their own single state 'final' solution.

It's also not actually about Palestine vs. Israel, which should be obvious given the fact of Israel's military dominance. Israel IS really facing existentially threats of it's own, just not directly from Palestine, and instead from ALL of it's neighbours. That state of constantly requiring Israel to be capable of winning an existential war since it's inception has kept things in a perpetual state of near-war, and more often proxy-war with the Palestiniances as the pawns of alternately Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others depending which time and region we choose to look at.

Predictively, that gives us that Isreal can not, under any circumstances, accept conditions to exist where any party(in particular Iran as the main backer) views the "Al Aqsa Flood operation" as a success. That means Israel will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure that happens and Iran in particular views that operation as a mistake. Nothing the UN or any of the rest of us say or do can change that.

Well put. But what's the % of Western (or the whole World in general except the Middle Eastern region) population who can make the distinction? It's really depressing.

Here in Canada, IMO the political landscape is very much the same as in the US. It is firmly drilled into people's mind that anyone criticizing the government of Israel's constant harrasement, military action, and land grabs in Palestinian territories are automatically branded as Anti-semitism by the likes of the JDOs (Jewish Defense Organizations). There are many legit Anti-Semitism incidents in Canada that need to be condemned, true, but there are also real over-reaction and subpression of objective opinions by the JDOs. These "false branding" hurts people's lives. And we almost NEVER hear the word Zionist (or anti-Zionist) in the media, mostly isolated to academic circles only.

Nobody would be offended hearing someone criticize any country's policy and military incursion (say, you don't like Trump/Biden? No one will say you're anti-American), but any negative comment involving Israel? Damn it boy, you're begging for trouble. As if Isreal, Likud, Netanyahu and the Jewish people are one and the same. Criticize one, you criticize all. But why is that? What makes Isreal, above all other countries, well above any reproach?

Now, I'm not pro- or anti-Semite nor pro- or anti-Zionist. Such generalised sentiment is wrong to me. I'm just pro-peace, the history of that land is way too complex and the blood spilled between its peoples ran for generations and gone on for centuries. It's unrealistic for any leaders to settle anything between their peoples in a political term or two (and not even factoring outside influences that DON'T want them to settle). There are too many hate and zero trust between the peoples right now. Just let peace reigns for a decade then it'll be time to talk settlement of statehood. Give Isrealites & Palestinians some peaoce & prosperity first. Everyone, including the media, politicians inside and outside of that land, the UN, etc. just need to recognize that and not be just so lopsided in their support.

target:iran.reason? isreal:
https://videosift.com/video/col-larry-wilkerson-breaks-down-the-scariest-scenario-yet

"Hamas....and Isreal are both equally to blame" Just absolute grade A bullshit. Israel is the cause of the conflict, the aggressor, the expansionist, the bully, the big stick, and (you'll love this) the Nazi in this situation. Hamas is born from Israel's actions as a misguided attempt at retaliation/defense.
When deaths are 30-1, with over 80% of the 30 being civilians (and 0% of the 1 being civilians, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian), one side is far worse.
Once again, because you can't seem to understand, complaints about one party in a fiasco do not equate to support of the other party's methodology. Jumping to that conclusion is the epitome of ignance (once again, meaning intentional, un-fixable ignorance).
OMFG, really?!? Hamas uses their casualties as "propaganda", equated to Israel's over sold lies about their unconscionable actions that CAUSED those avoidable civilian casualties? Damn, you really have your head up Israel's ass so far you can't see reality at all, huh?
For it to stop, the perpetrators must see themselves for what they are, the perpetrators. That is why fault must be assigned properly, only the perpetrator can stop what they are doing, and they must understand their own horrendous actions to want to stop. Assigning them blame at least gives them the opportunity, if they could only open their ears and minds enough to see past their side's propaganda. Yes, I mean Israel.

Both of you are so angry and whip-ready with media regurgitated points that you fail to see whats in front of you. Israel may be winning the ground war but Palestine has won the Media war (for once....).

It is pretty obvious that nobody blames innocent civilians so lets just ignore that.

Hamas....and Isreal are both equally to blame. Both of you are so busy trying to point fingers because of a lopsided body count that you fail to realize that its not the 'equivalency of an equation' that's wrong.....its the fact that the equation exists at all that is wrong....and it does exist. Saying that it doesn't exists equates past present and future Israeli deaths to nothing.

if there were equal deaths on both sides then it would be okay? Of course not. It's the morons on both sides that keep picking at each other that are to blame. By pointing your finger at one side and declaring "you're worse" you legitimize and by default PROMOTE the other side. Unless you qualify your statement, which you didn't.

All you said was "Pro-Israeli Propgandists...braaahhh." Oh hey you could have mentioned that Hamas probably uses urban casualties as their own method of propaganda.


And Asmo you said "I guarantee you...there would be more Israelis swinging."

SO WHAT?

Hang the responsible and move on. The moment you say...told you there were more Israelis responsible is the moment the Israelis pick up the fight again or vice versa.

So yeah..I stand by my statement that it is the epitome of ignorance to promote either side in this. They are both (Hamas and Israeli elites) bloodthirsty morons and it doesn't matter whose at fault...it just needs to stop.

@bcglorf
how come it always take you 4-5 posts to get an idea across that i can relate to?
its frustrating.

dont know how you got i feel america is some kind of 'special" place.
again i seem to have failed in conveying how wretched i think my government has been for the past few decades.

irregardless...
not american eh?
interesting.....
so you think america should play the global police?
and what exactly gives us that right?
because we have the bigger guns? bigger military?

since it cant be on moral grounds it HAS to be military might.

and america only likes to play with those countries it wants/covets/desires in order to perpetuate this global hegemony thing is has going on.

god you are confusing.
on the one hand you wish to see injustice brought to its knees and are willing to make a deal with the devil to do it.

yet on the other hand you reference history as if you have a semblance of understanding and if THAT is the case then you KNOW nothing is a delineated black vs white dynamic.
nothing is ever as simple or easy as it appears.

so you choose to use american military might to crush the religious zealots and in doing so create more...
but your argument appears to be:if we use drones LESS jihadists will be created and this is a good thing.

no.
it..is ..not.

you cant have it both ways.
you cant have your justice with zero (or less) consequences.
there will ALWAYS be consequences.

do you allow a country to work their problems out (as horrific as it can become).
OR do you go in and possibly extend the suffering of normal folk?

how long?
how long do you think it morally right to intrude on another country and most likely extend conflict,while feeding the rage and resentment creating even more fanatics and zealots who only desire is to bring the suffering to your your door?

and here is what really blows me away.
you are utterly oblivious to just how arrogant your statements are.
yes they are coming from a moral outrage.
yes they are coming from a reaction to horror.
but it is still arrogant all the same.

who are you?
who are you to dictate to anyone how or what they should do?

are there homeless in your country?
are there people starving?
is there injustice?
horrors?

or is it only the countries populated by brown people where the injustices warrant violence?
should america come to your country and clean house there as well?

hell,you wanted us in syria and now pakistan.
any other country you want us to drone?
specific people?

or is it a specific religion?
you seem awfully unsure of those muslim folk.
isreal has been doing all kinds of nasty things to the palestinians for the past 80 yrs.
how come no mention of america droning them?

are you starting to see why your argument makes no sense to me?
it is illogical.

because at the end of the day the poor and less fortunate will always pay the price.
how high a price are you willing to pay for seeing a wrong righted?
does it matter that those people you wept for and were outraged for paid an even higher price?

violence begets violence.
if history taught you anything it had to be that equation.

and a drone strike is violence.
it is intimidation.
it is assasination.
and it is wrong.
without a declaration of war passed by congress and no accountability it is wrong.

i will not make a deal with the devil to get justice today.
because when payment comes due the injustices wrought will tower over everything.
i know you disagree with me.
know that i am ok with that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'isreal, nationalists, racisim, purity, infiltrators, sudanese, max blumenthal' to 'israel, nationalists, racisim, purity, infiltrators, sudanese, max blumenthal' - edited by calvados

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by longde.

Your video, isreals new racism-the persecution of african migrants, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/isreals-new-racism-the-persecution-of-african-migrants, right?

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Norsuelefantti. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

whoops
http://videosift.com/video/isreals-new-racism-the-persecution-of-african-migrants
and i even voted lol.
teach me to vote first,watch after

Isreal always seems to find itself protected from conversations like these. If you make any criticism of the state you are called "racist". Or the Mossad just m

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

That's interesting... I wasn't aware of that. It seems Nazi policies and distaste for "Jew Science" greatly slowed their nuclear research down, but they were still making fast progress on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

"In the late 1930s, Germany might very well have had a 5-year lead on the West in [atomic weaponry]. ... [But] Manhattan did go forward, first and foremost as a counter to the feared German development [of atomic weaponry]." Google Books: How to lose a War.

The following thread isn't a primary source, but it's enough to make me think more research would probably find similar conclusions to the commenters:

Germany was working on nuclear bombs and reactors. German scientists Hahn, Meitner and Stassmann discovered the nuclear chain reaction in uranium in 1939. One reason Albert Einstein wrote FDR lobbying for an all out effort to make an atomic bomb was he got letter from German friends saying we know how to make atomic explosions for Gods sake hurry up. Einstein got through to FDR and we know were this ended up. In Germany they put their best man in charge a theorist named Werner von Heisenberg...