No, I’d blame the current government (and its interests) for 15% of it or so. There are many, many interests making life extremely difficult for the Palestinians. Christian Palestinians have been virtually eradicated, and that is just a small story in the ongoing tragedy. Arabic interests (competing outside groups who all want dominance), criminal interests (the drug trade flows through parts of the problems), Persian interests, other geopolitical forces in the past whose effects still linger, American politicians jumping the gun (that is a whole topic for how to create a disaster out of progress).

I think the total Israeli fault comes to about 20% or so, but I’m just rough ball-parking it. I’ve not paid close attention to the situation in a long time, much of what I think is (a) more accurate and (b) more incomplete.

One of the big problems is that people want to “blame it all” on just one side or the other or treat any criticism on any group as an attempt to “blame it all” on them.

This is what set off the fighting, and this isn’t disputed. Israel crossed in Gaza and killed people. That’s it. Do that, and you’re pretty much guaranteed a big fight.

My own backstory; I have a good friend who is Israeli, served in a front line position in the Israeli army and hates hates hates hates the current Government’s position. How he feels is really much more bitter than I can describe because he is a descendent of holocaust survivors, and he sees his country as repeating to others what happened to his own family.

BTW, the entire moral argument has to do with results as being interpreted as goals. The rocket attacks, of all things, kill more military as a percentage of casualties that the “military target” responses. So, if I analyze the two sides from their casualty yields rather than other metrics, the Hamas method is more oriented towards inflicting military losses than Israel’s method. Is that fair? Is that correct? Is that something that should go into the calculus of conflict when methods are adjusted? I think all of those points are open to debate.

My grandfather and father were both pro-Israel. Grandfather was the cultural attache for Austria, was transitioning to Jordan when the stress gave him his career ending heart attacks and an apology for using him up and ending his life (though after being sent home to die he lived a rather long life). Given grandfather’s job, my dad got the routine CIA training as a young man, it is where he first encountered the LDS Church (an alcoholic bishop’s son).

Anyway, I have a mild interest in conflict resolution (I’m even cited in the CFR’s for authority a couple-three times on the subject, much to my surprise).

160. theradicalmormon — I may yet have to get around to finishing a counter-part essay on the topic of cheating and how Oslo failed following the Oslo successes.

Anyway, enjoyed the posts.

150. B. Tippetts — thanks.

Hezbollah paid a high price politically in the 2006 Israeli invasion, something Israel did not expect as being a product of said invasion. Emigration of people not affiliated with Hezbollah has increased dramatically in the following years. Hezbollah’s legitimate influence has been diminished considerably.

Israel’s goals for this most recent war were more along those lines. So it remains to be seen whether “Hamas gets stronger” as anti-war Libs love to say happens in a war. “Evil just gets stronger”, right? I suggest patience and a studious approach to things instead of simply flapping off like theradicalmormon here.

The anti-Israel ranting is laughable in the first place. The track record of conflict leans morally toward Israel. That’s simply facts, not apologetics. This particular conflict is a response to continuous rocket attacks since 2006 from Gaza despite cease-fire agreements. This is not new. This is a pattern of bad behavior by a militant Palestinian faction.

Other militant factions have seen the error of their ways, hopefully Hamas will also see the light.