Both sides should be made to fight with blunt weapons in the mud and muck. So they can understand what it is like to strike down another human being.

The spray of blood, the crack of bone, and the release of bowels.

Let them wallow in the shit spray of someone they have killed. Then, while they wallow in in the miasmic soup of guts and bile, maybe they will understand.


Before some jack jawing idiot comes in here and says, "Nordlich have you ever killed any one? What do you know?!" Let me clear the air, No I have not and I never will. The best non lethal deterrent is to not place yourself in that situation in the first place.

You put a lot of effort into that comment. I can tell by the following sentence

"Then, while they wallow in (pause...thinking of the best way to say this) in the miasmic soup of guts and bile, maybe they will understand."

Anyways, anyone commenting on this matter *should* put in a lot of effort in. It's pretty fucked up.

Fucking Israeli assholes.

I guess I'll be the resident Israeli asshole.
The supreme court comment was pretty embarrassing for someone who at the time was Israel's secretary of state. But how "Israel made about 90000 phone calls" and "We asked them to leave places in which there were Hamas headquarters" are NOT answers to "Israel is committing indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war"?
They are. And if these are the kind of answers that prompt a journalist to call someone a terrorist, it seems to me that he's somewhat of a poor journalist.
The white phosphorus issue should be raised, but doesn't appear in the video of the press conference at all. And that in an article that accuses Israel of mouth shutting.
It would've been interesting to see the entire press conference to see whether those accusations have any grasp in reality.

>> ^Rambaldi:
I guess I'll be the resident Israeli asshole.
The supreme court comment was pretty embarrassing for someone who at the time was Israel's secretary of state. But how "Israel made about 90000 phone calls" and "We asked them to leave places in which there were Hamas headquarters" are NOT answers to "Israel is committing indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war"?
They are. And if these are the kind of answers that prompt a journalist to call someone a terrorist, it seems to me that he's somewhat of a poor journalist.
The white phosphorus issue should be raised, but doesn't appear in the video of the press conference at all. And that in an article that accuses Israel of mouth shutting.
It would've been interesting to see the entire press conference to see whether those accusations have any grasp in reality.


Ok. You engaged in a fair and open manner. I want to do the same, I want to establish some baselines. How do you respond to the extreme majority of countries which have voted for Israeli sanction in the U.N.? Do you think that the considerable inequity of injuries and death tolls between Palestinians and Israelis is a problem? Last, (not that I would necessarily expect this to be answered truthfully) are you part of Israel's new online initiative to stamp out criticism of Israel and its policies?

Took me awhile
Your last question seems like the first I should answer, so no, I'm not part of any Israeli online initiative, nor am I aware of one (I'll probably look it up after I post this to satisfy my curiosity).

I'm no expert on the other two questions.

I'm assuming that what you refer to is that the inequity of the death tolls and injuries seems to create an image of excessive force. That image is not necessarily true - you can't deduce the usage of excessive force from that inequity, given the terrorists lack of care for civilian lives on both sides, and the nature of a conflict between an organized army and guerrilla warriors. That inequity also does not reflect the harsh reality of people living under constant threat of terrorist attacks before the conflict (or, to be fair, the harsh reality of Palestinians living in Gaza).

The vote you're referring to is the vote to support the Goldstone report, which the Israeli government considers biased. I honestly don't know enough about the report to verify that claim. It should be pointed out though that Israel traditionally has very little support in the UN, so this vote does not necessarily reflect whether the report is true and its recommendations appropriate.