Hamas Violating Rules of War

[dre]

It's not all about the Israel-Palestine conflict, believe it or not. I was referring to all of the atrocities that have gone on in the world, and continue to go on. It's bull, as I said, and I have no faith in the organization nor in a world court/international law. I can now understand why some would want nothing to do with any of it.

What youre actually saying is you have no faith in the 200+ UN member states, especially the ones on the UNSC and ESPECIALLY veto holders like the US, Russia, China, France and the UK. Unfortunately the UN, at the end of the day was created to enhance the issues of the already powerfull countries on the security council... so if these countries dont have a compelling insterest in a given conflict nothing gets done. And if a rogue nation can get backing from at least one veto holder nothing gets done.

I tend to agree that the UN is not properly structured, and that international law is applied selectively or not at all. Its a huge problem, but the problem isnt what you think it is.

And despite all their problems, they actually have done lots of usefull stuff.

You might have a different opinion if you were a child in the developing world that recieved food, medicine or vaccines through the UN, or if you were one of the 30 million refugees that has recieved UN aid since 1951, or one of the 1.3 billion people the UN has helped get access to safe drinking water, or one of the millions that benefited from the irradication of smallpox, or one of the millions of people living in regions where the UN has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements ending regional conflicts.

Edited June 28, 2010 by dre

[segnosaur]

On the U.N. not helping Palestinians

How can you say that?

The U.N. gave a job to Awad al-Qiq, a respected Palestinian educator!

Of course, al-Qig also spent his free time building rockets to fire at Israeli schools and other civilians, but he was an employed terrorist gosh darn it! Shouldn't that count for something?

Because its blatantly true.

Ummm... I think you missed the point. I was trying to be sarcastic.

The UN is probably the most anti-palestinian group in the world. Time after time they proclaim that its illegal for Israel to occupy palestinian land, build their own settlements, and pump out 80% of their valuable natural resources. But at the end of the day they do absolutely nothing to enforce their own laws. They just sit on their hands while more land gets colonized and thats about the most anti palestinian thing possible.

The UN helped create Israel, and since then as given them a FREE PASS and let them do whatever they want. I dont even think its possible for UN to act in a MORE pro-Israeli position than they have.

Actually I agree with you but disagree with you.

The U.N. is anti-palestinian, but not for the reason you state (i.e. not because they're ignoring the actions of the Israelis). They are anti-Palestinian because their actions enable the terrorist cause. By spending so much time criticizing Israel, by employing Palestinian terrorists within the U.N., they are putting Israel in a position where it must defend itself. As a result many innocent Palestinians get caught in the middle.

If the U.N. (and the rest the world) actually took a more balanced role, if they eliminated Hamas members from their payroll, if they recognized that not every Israeli action is some horrible war crime, then perhaps Hamas and other terrorist organizations would loose their ability to provoke Israel into action, and Israel would then be more reassured of peace.

But, as long as various "useful idiots" (and the U.N.) keep accusing Israel when they take actions to prevent rocket attacks and kidnappings then Hamas, etc. will continue terrorist acts to provoke Israel. And why not? Not like they care about the Palestinians that get caught.

[dre]

Ummm... I think you missed the point. I was trying to be sarcastic.

Actually I agree with you but disagree with you.

The U.N. is anti-palestinian, but not for the reason you state (i.e. not because they're ignoring the actions of the Israelis). They are anti-Palestinian because their actions enable the terrorist cause. By spending so much time criticizing Israel, by employing Palestinian terrorists within the U.N., they are putting Israel in a position where it must defend itself. As a result many innocent Palestinians get caught in the middle.

If the U.N. (and the rest the world) actually took a more balanced role, if they eliminated Hamas members from their payroll, if they recognized that not every Israeli action is some horrible war crime, then perhaps Hamas and other terrorist organizations would loose their ability to provoke Israel into action, and Israel would then be more reassured of peace.

But, as long as various "useful idiots" (and the U.N.) keep accusing Israel when they take actions to prevent rocket attacks and kidnappings then Hamas, etc. will continue terrorist acts to provoke Israel. And why not? Not like they care about the Palestinians that get caught.

The problem is most of Israels actions and policies in the occupied territories have nothing to do with security, and way more to do with colonialism. They arent pumping 80% of Palestines fresh water into Israel because of rocket attacks, and they arent building hundreds of settlements in the occupied territories because of rocket attacks either. They are taking water because they NEED it, and taking land because they WANT it.

If the UN had actively enforced international law against both sides then they could have made a lot of progress. Instead they have chosen to do almost nothing.

They gave Jews and Palestinians a piece of land, and then did nothing when the Arabs tried to take away the some of the land they gave to the Jews, then did nothing again when the Jews tried to take land the UN designated for the Arabs.

In both cases they should have enforced their own mandate. When Egypt made clear its intentions to evict UN forces from the Sainai the UN should have geared up for war, and HELPED Israel defend their portion of the UN mandate. And by the same token Israeli forces should be kicked out of the occupied territories in much the same way Saddam Husseins forces were chased out of Kuwait.

Uniform, and complete enforcement of the law against ANY party that endevours to break it... that was their only chance to be effective, and they have done a great disservice to both sides by sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

[Bonam]

The problem is most of Israels actions and policies in the occupied territories have nothing to do with security, and way more to do with colonialism. They arent pumping 80% of Palestines fresh water into Israel because of rocket attacks, and they arent building hundreds of settlements in the occupied territories because of rocket attacks either. They are taking water because they NEED it, and taking land because they WANT it.

If the UN had actively enforced international law against both sides then they could have made a lot of progress. Instead they have chosen to do almost nothing.

They gave Jews and Palestinians a piece of land, and then did nothing when the Arabs tried to take away the some of the land they gave to the Jews, then did nothing again when the Jews tried to take land the UN designated for the Arabs.

In both cases they should have enforced their own mandate. When Egypt made clear its intentions to evict UN forces from the Sainai the UN should have geared up for war, and HELPED Israel defend their portion of the UN mandate. And by the same token Israeli forces should be kicked out of the occupied territories in much the same way Saddam Husseins forces were chased out of Kuwait.

Uniform, and complete enforcement of the law against ANY party that endevours to break it... that was their only chance to be effective, and they have done a great disservice to both sides by sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

The UN has no forces of its own. Which nation would possibly want its military embroiled in the midst of one of the world's oldest and most bitter ongoing conflicts? I agree that if the UN had been right there defending Israeli territory against Arab aggression in 1948 things certainly would have been very different, and perhaps better. But that is not the case, and at this point in history, its just as unrealistic as it's always been. Would you support Canadian troops occupying the Palestinian territories to as you put it "kick out" Israel and also stop terrorist attacks?

[segnosaur]

The problem is most of Israels actions and policies in the occupied territories have nothing to do with security, and way more to do with colonialism. They arent pumping 80% of Palestines fresh water into Israel because of rocket attacks, and they arent building hundreds of settlements in the occupied territories because of rocket attacks either.

If you want to complain about the building of Israeli settlements, then fine, I'll agree with you... its dumb for Israel to do that until the status of the land is resolved. But, those settlements should be at most a minor point. Settlements can be dismantled (or land can be exchanged), and indeed, Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza years ago. (Don't you find it a bit strange that Israel has settlements in the west bank but not Gaza, but it was from Gaza that most of the recent attacks were originating?

They gave Jews and Palestinians a piece of land, and then did nothing when the Arabs tried to take away the some of the land they gave to the Jews, then did nothing again when the Jews tried to take land the UN designated for the Arabs.

Of course, keep in mind that the land that Israel "took" was actually captured in a defensive war.

In both cases they should have enforced their own mandate. When Egypt made clear its intentions to evict UN forces from the Sainai the UN should have geared up for war, and HELPED Israel defend their portion of the UN mandate. And by the same token Israeli forces should be kicked out of the occupied territories in much the same way Saddam Husseins forces were chased out of Kuwait.

First of all, as I said before, Israel captured the west bank and Gaza (as well as other territory) in defensive wars, this was a bit different than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Secondly, lets say you do force Israel out of the west bank and Gaza... you also going to send U.N. forces in to stop rocket attacks/suicide bombers? (Remember, the charter for Hamas is not just "a Palistinian homeland", its the complete elimination of Israel as a political entity.)

[Guest American Woman]

What youre actually saying is you have no faith in the 200+ UN member states, especially the ones on the UNSC and ESPECIALLY veto holders like the US, Russia, China, France and the UK.

What I was saying is exactly what I actually said. I don't need you, any more than I need anyone else, to state what my position is or what I'm "actually saying." I'm quite capable of doing that myself, thank you very much.

Unfortunately the UN, at the end of the day was created to enhance the issues of the already powerfull countries on the security council... so if these countries dont have a compelling insterest in a given conflict nothing gets done. And if a rogue nation can get backing from at least one veto holder nothing gets done.

Which makes it pretty useless as an entity in and of itself.

I tend to agree that the UN is not properly structured, and that international law is applied selectively or not at all. Its a huge problem, but the problem isnt what you think it is.

What makes you think you know what I think the problem is? And furthermore, what makes you think you know more about it than I do?

And despite all their problems, they actually have done lots of usefull stuff.

Never said otherwise.

You might have a different opinion if you were a child in the developing world that recieved food, medicine or vaccines through the UN, or if you were one of the 30 million refugees that has recieved UN aid since 1951, or one of the 1.3 billion people the UN has helped get access to safe drinking water, or one of the millions that benefited from the irradication of smallpox, or one of the millions of people living in regions where the UN has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements ending regional conflicts.

You could say the same thing about the U.S., yet if someone were to say that they have no faith in the U.S. government, you wouldn't bring up anything like this in defense of the U.S. Same with religion. When people say how ridiculous a belief in God is, you don't come to the defense of religion and point out the good that's been done. Same with people saying they have no faith in the RCMP. I doubt if pointing out that they have taken murderers and drug dealers off the street would be a mind-changing factor. In other words, the same 'defense' can be made about just about any political party, government, organization. Doesn't remove the doubts one has about it's negative characteristics.

But I'm curious. When you point out that the UN was formed to enhance the powerful nations on the security council, do you give them credit for all the good that you've pointed out the UN has done, or do you just put blame on them when nothing gets done?

[dre]

If you want to complain about the building of Israeli settlements, then fine, I'll agree with you... its dumb for Israel to do that until the status of the land is resolved. But, those settlements should be at most a minor point. Settlements can be dismantled (or land can be exchanged), and indeed, Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza years ago. (Don't you find it a bit strange that Israel has settlements in the west bank but not Gaza, but it was from Gaza that most of the recent attacks were originating?

Of course, keep in mind that the land that Israel "took" was actually captured in a defensive war.

First of all, as I said before, Israel captured the west bank and Gaza (as well as other territory) in defensive wars, this was a bit different than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Secondly, lets say you do force Israel out of the west bank and Gaza... you also going to send U.N. forces in to stop rocket attacks/suicide bombers? (Remember, the charter for Hamas is not just "a Palistinian homeland", its the complete elimination of Israel as a political entity.)

First of all, as I said before, Israel captured the west bank and Gaza (as well as other territory) in defensive wars, this was a bit different than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Thats not entirely true if you look at history. The war in 1967 didnt just start when Egypt kicked UN troops off the penninsula, or closed the straits to Israeli ships. It started with both sides trying outdraw each other in access to the Jordan Rivers head waters. The first military action in the conflict was actually in August 1965 when Israel bombed Syria over their diversion of water to the Mukhaiba damn. After that there was a steady parade of clashes along the border that eventually lead to the war, and when the war started the IDF moved directly to secure key water assets, and secure their access.

But really thats besides the point because its no more legal and just to permanently occupy land in a defensive war than it is an offensive war. A lot of people consider the US invasion of Afghanistan to be a "defensive" war but I dont think most would be too receptive to the idea of building permanent US cities there. The millions of people living in the west bank had NOT ONE THING to do with any decisions made by Egypt or Israel that lead to war.

Secondly, lets say you do force Israel out of the west bank and Gaza... you also going to send U.N. forces in to stop rocket attacks/suicide bombers?

Absolutely. Arabs and Jews there are WAY to zealous to ever made peace with each other (at least enough of them to make peace impossible). I would probably propose a situation similar to Korea where you have complete disengagement and a DMZ between the two gangs of idiots with about 50 million land mines, and a 1000 foot tall concrete wall on either side of them, and a permanent contingent of forces to keep the peace.

[dre]

What I was saying is exactly what I actually said. I don't need you, any more than I need anyone else, to state what my position is or what I'm "actually saying." I'm quite capable of doing that myself, thank you very much.

Which makes it pretty useless as an entity in and of itself.

What makes you think you know what I think the problem is? And furthermore, what makes you think you know more about it than I do?

Never said otherwise.

You could say the same thing about the U.S., yet if someone were to say that they have no faith in the U.S. government, you wouldn't bring up anything like this in defense of the U.S. Same with religion. When people say how ridiculous a belief in God is, you don't come to the defense of religion and point out the good that's been done. Same with people saying they have no faith in the RCMP. I doubt if pointing out that they have taken murderers and drug dealers off the street would be a mind-changing factor. In other words, the same 'defense' can be made about just about any political party, government, organization. Doesn't remove the doubts one has about it's negative characteristics.

But I'm curious. When you point out that the UN was formed to enhance the powerful nations on the security council, do you give them credit for all the good that you've pointed out the UN has done, or do you just put blame on them when nothing gets done?

But I'm curious. When you point out that the UN was formed to enhance the powerful nations on the security council, do you give them credit for all the good that you've pointed out the UN has done, or do you just put blame on them when nothing gets done?

Yeah I gave them credit for that in the very post youre replying to.

What makes you think you know what I think the problem is? And furthermore, what makes you think you know more about it than I do?

I ready the post I was replying to.

What I was saying is exactly what I actually said. I don't need you, any more than I need anyone else, to state what my position is or what I'm "actually saying." I'm quite capable of doing that myself, thank you very much.

I didnt tell you what your position was, I simply pointed out what the position you stated actually means. And youre welcome!

Never said otherwise.

You just did... you described it as a "useless entity". I pointed out that it isnt one.

Edited June 28, 2010 by dre

[naomiglover]

I didn't say I was "okay" with any of what's taken place, but thanks for drawing your usual moronic conclusions regarding what MY position is.

There seems to be a pattern with you. You say something, someone points out what you have said and then you plead that no one understands what you're saying. Lets recap:

Machjo:

So you think it's OK for Israel to violate international law because Hamas does so? I'd say it's not Ok for either to do so. But that's just me.

--

American Woman:

Yeah, and I'd say sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, "international law" be damned.

--

Me:

So then you are okay with Hamas' rocket attacks and suicide bombings in the past.

--

American Woman:

I didn't say I was "okay" with any of what's taken place, but thanks for drawing your usual moronic conclusions regarding what MY position is.

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah I gave them credit for that in the very post youre replying to.

So you were giving the countries on the security council the credit for what the UN has accomplished? Ok, then.

I ready the post I was replying to.

Don't know what that means, but I have the feeling it doesn't answer my question anyway.

I didnt tell you what your position was, I simply pointed out what the position you stated actually means. And youre welcome!

I'll try one more time, stating it as clearly as I can. I said what I actually mean. I don't need you to interpret what I say. I don't need you to point out what my position actually means. Especially when you're dead wrong. If you still don't get it, if you still feel qualified to state what I "actually mean," I'll feel free to do the same regarding what you post. And I'll say "you're welcome" in advance for the thanks I know will be forthcoming when I declare what you "actually mean" when you state your opinion.

Edited June 28, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

There seems to be a pattern with you. You say something, someone points out what you have said and then you plead that no one understands what you're saying. Lets recap:

Machjo:

So you think it's OK for Israel to violate international law because Hamas does so? I'd say it's not Ok for either to do so. But that's just me.

--

American Woman:

Yeah, and I'd say sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, "international law" be damned.

--

Me:

So then you are okay with Hamas' rocket attacks and suicide bombings in the past.

--

American Woman:

I didn't say I was "okay" with any of what's taken place, but thanks for drawing your usual moronic conclusions regarding what MY position is.

Try to get this through your head. Just because I think sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, because I think it's necessary, doesn't mean I'm "OK" with it, as they are two different things. Same as wars sometimes have to be fought. Doesn't mean I'm "OK" with war. Is it sinking in yet?

So don't think I'm going to get into a discussion with you regarding whether or not suicide bombings are a matter of fighting fire with fire, because as I've stated quite clearly in the past, I'm no longer interested in discussing anything with you. So kindly quit stating what my position is, and go bother someone else with your inanity.

Thank you in advance.

Edited June 28, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

I'll try one more time, stating it as clearly as I can. I said what I actually mean. I don't need you to interpret what I say. I don't need you to point out what my position actually means. Especially when you're dead wrong. If you still don't get it, if you still feel qualified to state what I "actually mean," I'll feel free to do the same regarding what you post. And I'll say "you're welcome" in advance for the thanks I know will be forthcoming when I declare what you "actually mean" when you state your opinion.

I wasnt dead wrong. I just pointed out that critisizing a multi-national semi-democratic institution like the UN, what youre really doing is critisizing the member states that set and act on its policy.

I wasnt "interperating" your position... I was describing its effect.

[Guest American Woman]

I wasnt dead wrong.

Yes, you are dead wrong.

This is what you claim I am "actually saying:" What youre actually saying is you have no faith in the 200+ UN member states, especially the ones on the UNSC and ESPECIALLY veto holders like the US, Russia, China, France and the UK.

It's not true that I "especially" "have no faith" in those countries, and never said anything to give you license to claim that I am "actually saying" that I "especially" don't have faith in them.

I just pointed out that critisizing a multi-national semi-democratic institution like the UN, what youre really doing is critisizing the member states that set and act on its policy.

What I'm doing is criticizing the organization, for many reasons; reasons that go far beyond what you claim I am saying.

I wasnt "interperating" your position... I was describing its effect.

You most definitely were interpreting my position, and in doing so, incorrectly stating what I was "actually saying."

[dre]

Yes, you are dead wrong.

This is what you claim I am "actually saying:" What youre actually saying is you have no faith in the 200+ UN member states, especially the ones on the UNSC and ESPECIALLY veto holders like the US, Russia, China, France and the UK.

It's not true that I "especially" "have no faith" in those countries, and never said anything to give you license to claim that I am "actually saying" that I "especially" don't have faith in them.

What I'm doing is criticizing the organization, for many reasons; reasons that go far beyond what you claim I am saying.

You most definitely were interpreting my position, and in doing so, incorrectly stating what I was "actually saying."

What I'm doing is criticizing the organization

Right and heres what that organization is...

200+ UN member states, especially the ones on the UNSC and ESPECIALLY veto holders like the US, Russia, China, France and the UK

Those are the entities who are actually responsible for the policies and positions you dont like.

Edited June 28, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Those are the entities who are actually responsible for the policies and positions you dont like.

Don't listen to what I'm saying, then. Keep insisting I'm saying something I'm not.

You know, I expect that kind of behavior from others on this board, I just never expected it from you.

[dre]

Don't listen to what I'm saying, then. Keep insisting I'm saying something I'm not.

You know, I expect that kind of behavior from others on this board, I just never expected it from you.

Im not telling you what youre saying. Youre critisizing the policies of an organization, and Im just explaining to you that that organization isnt an entity that sets its own policies. Its comprised of member states, and those states decide what it does, and when it does and doesnt act.

If you want an example of why this distinction is important, what you should do is hash your opinion out a little better, and share some specifics. You mentioned atrocities around the world... lets talk about what youre actually referring to? Some specific examples?

[bud]

just wow.

Try to get this through your head. Just because I think sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, because I think it's necessary, doesn't mean I'm "OK" with it, as they are two different things. Same as wars sometimes have to be fought. Doesn't mean I'm "OK" with war. Is it sinking in yet?

machjo specifically asked you: "So you think it's OK for Israel to violate international law".

you answered, "Yeah, and I'd say sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, "international law" be damned."

did you mean something else when you said "yeah" to his question about you being "OK" with breaking international law? do you by chance believe that it's "OK" for israel to break international law and not the team you're not cheering for?

stay classy, american woman.

Edited June 29, 2010 by bud

[dre]

The UN has no forces of its own. Which nation would possibly want its military embroiled in the midst of one of the world's oldest and most bitter ongoing conflicts? I agree that if the UN had been right there defending Israeli territory against Arab aggression in 1948 things certainly would have been very different, and perhaps better. But that is not the case, and at this point in history, its just as unrealistic as it's always been. Would you support Canadian troops occupying the Palestinian territories to as you put it "kick out" Israel and also stop terrorist attacks?

Which nation would possibly want its military embroiled in the midst of one of the world's oldest and most bitter ongoing conflicts?

Nations that believe in rule of law.

Would you support Canadian troops occupying the Palestinian territories to as you put it "kick out" Israel and also stop terrorist attacks?

I dont like to write blank checks but If I thought it was part of a plan that would work then Id support that. Like I said... maybe some sort of international DMZ between the two parties with a knife at both of their throats simultaneously.

[Guest American Woman]

just wow.

machjo specifically asked you: "So you think it's OK for Israel to violate international law".

you answered, "Yeah, and I'd say sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, "international law" be damned."

did you mean something else when you said "yeah" to his question about you being "OK" with breaking international law? do you by chance believe that it's "OK" for israel to break international law and not the team you're not cheering for?

Since I've said I meant something else, I would say perhaps I did mean something else. Try to grasp the fact that I wasn't answering his question, but responding to the "I'd say....." portion of his post. Machjo specifically said "I'd say it's not Ok for either to do so" and I specifically said, "yeah, and I'D SAY ...." and I've already explained what I meant, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to get it.

stay classy, american woman.

Stay stupid, "bud."

Edited June 29, 2010 by American Woman

[bud]

Since I've said I meant something else, I would say perhaps I did mean something else. Try to grasp the fact that I wasn't answering his question, but responding to the "I'd say....." portion of his post. Machjo specifically said "I'd say it's not Ok for either to do so" and I specifically said, "yeah, and I'D SAY ...." and I've already explained what I meant, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to get it.

Stay stupid, "bud."

okay. whatever explanation you have given does not refute that you would be okay with breaking international law.

would this sometimes being okay standard of breaking international law include others as well or do you hold this 'sometimes being okay' standard for only israel?

Edited June 29, 2010 by bud

[segnosaur]

Which nation would possibly want its military embroiled in the midst of one of the world's oldest and most bitter ongoing conflicts?

Nations that believe in rule of law.

I see.....

In that case, how exactly do you feel about the Iraq invasion?

After all, Iraq had violated multiple security council resolutions. (Chapter 7 resolutions by the way, the enforcable ones.). And technically a state of war still existed between the countries. The U.S. and the 'coalition of the willing' were just going in to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. should have enforced themselves.

Re: Canada's participation in a Palestinian mission

I dont like to write blank checks but If I thought it was part of a plan that would work then Id support that. Like I said... maybe some sort of international DMZ between the two parties with a knife at both of their throats simultaneously.

I see...

And given the fact that Hamas has shown a willingness to launch terrorist attacks from civilian areas, are you willing to accept the innocent casualties that would result if Canadian forces attempt to stop such attacks? How many dead Palestinians do you think Canada would be willing to accept as 'collateral damage' before they decide "we can't kill innocents" and pull out?

[dre]

After all, Iraq had violated multiple security council resolutions. (Chapter 7 resolutions by the way, the enforcable ones.). And technically a state of war still existed between the countries. The U.S. and the 'coalition of the willing' were just going in to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. should have enforced themselves.

No the invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with any UN resolutions or international law. That was one of the many flimsy and dishonest excuses made but thats pretty much it.

And given the fact that Hamas has shown a willingness to launch terrorist attacks from civilian areas, are you willing to accept the innocent casualties that would result if Canadian forces attempt to stop such attacks? How many dead Palestinians do you think Canada would be willing to accept as 'collateral damage' before they decide "we can't kill innocents" and pull out?

I dont see that as being a problem, and I think that if a multi national force is enforcing the law fairly the vast majority of palestinians will support that force, and Hamas wont stay relevant for long.

[Bonam]

And given the fact that Hamas has shown a willingness to launch terrorist attacks from civilian areas, are you willing to accept the innocent casualties that would result if Canadian forces attempt to stop such attacks? How many dead Palestinians do you think Canada would be willing to accept as 'collateral damage' before they decide "we can't kill innocents" and pull out?

I dont see that as being a problem, and I think that if a multi national force is enforcing the law fairly the vast majority of palestinians will support that force, and Hamas wont stay relevant for long.

I see, so you don't see dead Palestinian civilians as "being a problem". So why are they a problem when they happen to be killed by Israel rather than a "multi national force"?

[dre]

I see, so you don't see dead Palestinian civilians as "being a problem". So why are they a problem when they happen to be killed by Israel rather than a "multi national force"?

Thats not a question worth answering. If you dont see a difference between a multinational force even handedly applying the law to both sides, and a nation using its military to expand its borders and get access to resources, then were pretty much going to have to leave it at that.

[Natchuck]

I have come across people who will defend Hamas' violations of international law against Israel on the grounds that if Israel can do so, then why not Hamas? And I've come across many defending Israel's violations of international law against Palestinians on the same grounds. I say both sides are wrong and I'm also a 'Canucklehead'. go figure.

In my view, two wrongs don't make a right. Israel's violations of international law are wrong regardless of what Hamas is doing. And Hamas' violations of human rights are wrong regardless of what Israel is doing. In the end, they are both wrong, and neither should wait for the other to abide by international law before it does. Instead, they should both be racing to be the first to abide by international laws. The first to do so will win the moral war, after which the second would quickly feel the heat. The problem is there are too many on both sides defending the illegal acts of their favorite side.

Ideally, sure, but I can't see either side standing by while their own people continue to be murdered just so they can claim to be more moral. Not a very realistic proposal.