<<"There's a HUGE difference between "deliberately attack and murder civilians" and civilians that get killed during war....">>

<which is why some 1400 people can be killed and only a handful of Israelis>

Oh. I get it. It's that you're not very smart. I just say this obvious fact because there's no correlation between the two.

1) Israel using care to not kill innocent people more than any other military in history
vs
2) Hamas & Co. trying as hard as they can to kill as many innocents as possible.

This has NOTHING to do HOW MANY died in this equanimity. Not at all. More Pals died because Israel has the military upper hand and that Hamas & Co. uses civilians as human shields (a fact that I'm sure that you're "ignorant" of...).

<and you can still circle jerk this obese and obscene notion that Israeli military is the most noble and moral one in the history of the world.>

In THIS CONTEXT, .................... YES. THIS CONTEXT. JUST THIS CONTEXT.

Do you not understand that difference?

<I don't care about your accepted definitions regarding war crimes if they allow you to dismiss the wart crimes of Israel.>

Definitions are definitions. You can't CHANGE them to fit your wishes.

<<"If Hamas & Co. did not commit war crimes by attacking specifically Israel civilians, Israel would not have been forced to go after the Gaza terrorists.">>

<Weelllllll...... Right. EXCEPT that the problem existed long before the creation of Hamas.>

Not relevant at all. Not even the TINIEST bit. Whether or NOT "the problem existed" even a million years ago, the FACT...the REALITY is that IF HAMAS DID NOT ATTACK ISRAEL, Israel WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACKED GAZA.

That's an UNQUESTIONABLE fact. Ergo: Hamas is responsible for the response by Israel as they worked to STOP the attacks coming out of Gaza, this response that caused the deaths in question.

<If you are amoral and a fucking moron :-)>

No. I am obviously more intelligent than you are, and there's a difference, a space-vacuum-like void between personal moralities and simple facts.

I personally abhor any death and war in general, but I also logically know that it's sometimes necessary. Hamas was not going to stop attacking of their own volition. Israel COULD have attacked after the FIRST rocket on the FIRST day of the ceasefire - but they didn't. They could have waited to attack ANYTIME in the months after the cease-fire, all the time when rockets and mortars were falling...But they did not. MORESO, Israel could have wholly invaded using their obvious infantry advantage, and action would would have killed FAR MORE PEOPLE on BOTH sides, but chose NOT to. This would have been the 'better' option in terms of taking care of Hamas, but they chose to not do this, and thus LESS Pals died and there was LESS destruction of property.

This is a reality. You are not connected to reality. You are bias-driven, which is akin to a 'logical' heroin, which has a habit of rotting the brain - you; my friend, are such a junkie.

dimi3:
>> "You resent Zionism for reasons of blatant bigotry and prejudice."
> Aah, okay. Anything else?

No, that's most of it.

_Everyone_ nationalistic belief can be condemned.

Certainly one could spew hatred towards the nationalistic feeling of Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, Italians, Bulgarians, Thais, Brazilians, etc.

But if you chose to spew hate towards just one nation, you're a racist bigot. It's pretty clear.

Adam, as long as you choose to dwell in your own dreamworld it will be hard to come out and play with the adults here.

You are compounding your own misunderstanding with regards to xenophobia. How do you expect ANYONE to dialogue with you when you choose your own meaning for the words you use??