should america support Israel?

[little_monkey]

The policy is: bomb until the enemy surrenders. Under that policy, there is a possibility that a million could die. There's a difference between what is a policy and what is a possibility.

Advocating for policy divorced from outcomes is very unlikely to result in a useful policy (cf 2003 Iraqi invasion).

Sure you have to look at all outcomes, not just one which is exactly what you're doing. For instance, it's very possible that only a few thousands might get killed.

Also, here's what you wrote:

I will not shred a tear for the Palestinians as they are getting a lot less than what they really deserve. Perhaps when a million of them are killed, those who are left behind will come to their sense and drop their weapons and wave the white flag. In that case only will talk of peace actually happen.

You clearly think that to be acceptable as an outcome.

Sure, again one possible outcome that I have admitted to, which you are clearly focussed on because you are looking at this through your emotions rather than logic.

You're implying that Hamas attacks and Israeli attacks are on par, and there are not: Hamas attacks are part of a declaration of war, Israeli attacks are a response to those attacks and constitute as acts of defense.

Nonsense, whether or not one is the aggressor has no bearing on whether one's actions are moral.

You can ask ten people on what constitute morality, and you'll get hundred opinions on what morality is. Are you proposing that you have an absolute monopoly on what constitutes morality?

By your logic, the Dresden firebombing was moral even though the vast majority of of its victims were civilians.

It isn't a moral question. Secondly, at the times, the reason behind that bombing was to send a clear message to the German population that they were losing the war, and only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable for two reasons: 1) the Nazis had vowed to fight to the last man - they were even enlisted young boys as young as 10 year old to fight; 2) in WW1, many Germans, including the Nazis, firmly believed that Germany had not lost the war as little destruction had taken place on German soil. So this time in WW2, the Allies were making sure that their message was clear. Debating whether that was moral or not is an exercise in futility.

By your logic, Hiroshima was moral, even though its only real purpose was to demonstrate to not only the Japanese but also the Russians our possession of a game-changing weapon.

The alternative - invading Japan - could have produced more fatalities both on the US and Japanese sides. Thinking that this altenative is more moral is a futile debate.

For your information, when Israel launches attacks, they warn the Palestinians to give them enough time to evacuate. Hamas response to that is to tell those Palestinians to stay in their houses, and most Palestinians obey, resulting into greater civilian casualties that feeds into Hamas propaganda. So Hamas can very well project its authority.

I know that, thanks. That is why I call Hamas' policy an "atrocity" -- have you not noticed that yet?

Get your fact straightened out, I wasn't informing you that hamas' policy is an atrocity, but that Hamas can easly project its authority, which you claimed they couldn't.

That's a lame excuse. During the 72-hr truce, no rockets were fired by Hamas, which again disprove your claim. When that 72-hr truce was over, Hamas pulled out of the talks that Cairo had organized, and declared that since their demands were not met, the rocket attacks would continue, and immediately rockets were launched. Hamas is definitely in control of its terrorists.

Actually, those rocket-firings demonstrate my point here, that the Palestinian Authority cannot control the extremists.

Get your facts straightened: the PA rules over the West Bank; Hamas rules over Gaza. And Hamas has clearly demonstrated it has complete control over its "extremists" in Gaza.

You never going to have a world without terrorists, just like you're never going to have a world without crime. But the situation in the ME goes beyond that simplification. It's a war between two people, and to understand that, you need to know your history - what happened in 1948, what happened prior to 1948, etc. If you have a superficial knowledge, especially if you just know what's in the headlines of present day events, you will get it wrong.

---

Which is why I have taken the time to look into the larger historical picture.

That you can't get many of the facts straight proves otherwise.