Thank you, dane,

"The Germans had well and truly lost the war by February 1945. Most fair minded people would agree that the bombing of Dresden was unnecessary and didn't speed up the end of the war at all...."

I was watching a program recently on one of the men who took part in Bomber Command in the bombing of Dresden. Apparently he and his fellows were shunned to an extent after. They were not accorded a heroic reputation, were quietly ignored for their efforts in obeying orders to raze Dresden - there's no honour in hideous overkill.

The bombing of Dresden was "wrong" - as is the hideous assault of unarmed civilians being chased up and down the streets of Gaza, massacred where they cowered in homes, schools and hospitals.

The reason Israel is losing the "propaganda" war is because in these days of rapid communication - the world was apprised instantly of what they were doing - and no amount of whitewash or mitigation can erase what our eyes were seeing.

To Julianthenutter.

Pick up some history books instead of your Christian rose closured glasses.

For 400 years the British have gone to war in Europe for a sound political reason. They will not tolerate any European nation using military force to subjugate all of Europe, because they are smart enough to figure out that they will eventually be invaded as the last man standing. They don't do it to save the world, they do it for survival. Proclaiming that you are killing millions for a higher good is a cultural universal. Hitler did exactly the same thing, except unlike the British, he really did believe what he was doing was moral. He proclaimed that he had to save Europe from Jewish Communism and he too thought that killing millions was worth the price.

The reason why we had show trials of Nazis instead of the other way around, is because we managed to narrowly win, instead of the Germans. If the Germans had won, they would now be saying that they were the ones who only went to war for a just cause.

Russia and Poland annexed German land as reparations, and I think that France grabbed a bit of Germany too. We helped the Germans and the Japs primarily because we did not want to drive them into the Communist camp. We hanged hundreds of Germans 12 at a time, and most of the poor bastards were just ordinary bureaucrats and soldiers who were obeying orders they dared not to disobey.

During WW2, the allies were aware of what the Germans were doing to the Jews and the Gypsies, and they did nothing. Despite pleas from Jewish organisations for the allies to bomb the railways leading into the camps, the Allies refused. The reason why our peaceful and forgiving Christian civilisations refused is probably because they agreed with what Hitler was doing. I don't know if that is true, but the Jews sure as hell believe it. That is why they realised that they would never be safe from their persecutors unless they had a country of their own.

The Jews went back to Israel which has been their ancient homeland since the day they stole it from somebody else. But that is hardly unique. Go back in history and every modern state today is the product of a stronger tribe overcoming a weaker one.

But the racist Arabs reacted to the Jews self immigrating into Israel in a similar way to racist Australians reacted to the self immigrating "refugee" boat people. They didn't like it. It is funny how people like yourself can see Australian racism but are unable to recognise Arab racism.

But unlike Australians, the Arabs reacted violently The Arabs are much more racist and violent than Australians because their religion teaches them to be that way. The Muslims know that Palestine is Muslim because they stole it from the Christians and Jews, fair and square. No multiculturalism for the Muslims. No partition of the caliphate. No your side of the fence, and our side. Islam is uppermost.
You do what we say, or you have to fight all of us.

And that is what it all boils down to. There is a geographic location and only one culture can rule it. Neither side will compromise. The Jews need it for survival, and the Muslims want it because the existence of Jewish state is an affront to their God.

The Jews wanted partition but the Muslims did not. Even now they will not accept Israel's right to exist.
And the more the Muslims will not accept it, and the more they use military force and terror to crush Israel, and the more the Muslims show the world what happens to their defeated enemies, the more land the Israelis will take from the Muslims. Because taking resources from the enemies who are sworn to your annihilation is a practical military necessity. The Jews know all about annihilation and this time they are not going quietly. The British mass murdered German civilians to ensure their own survival and the Israelis are doing similar with infinitely less civilian casualties. What I see is moral equivalence.

Great post Lego --though I think it will go straight over the heads of nutter and co.

And just to add a footnote. Here's an excerpt from a Muslim source:

“The 1967 war, in which Israel defeated several Arab countries, rubbed salt in the wound by underscoring the collective weakness of Muslim countries…But the loss of Jerusalem to Israel was a blow not just to Arab countries,but Muslim around the world… with the loss of Aqsa Mosque to Israel, many Muslims felt that ISLAM HAD LOST ITS FORMER GLORY “
Khaled Abou El Fadl [Professor of Law at the University of California] in his book “The Great Theft: Wresting Islam From The Extremists”

Dear SR:

The Palmer inquiry made no determination as to the legality of the restrictions on land crossings between Gaza and Israel. Bringing up this issue is therefore irrelevant and adds nothing to this discussion. The inquiry did, however, make a clear determination that the naval blockade was perfectly legal, and that fact IS relevant. In any case, unlike the naval blockade, Israel is clearly not capable of imposing a complete land blockade as it does not surround Gaza on all sides.

Your isolated quotation from the Palmer report regarding the cause of the situation in Gaza should be read in context, as I'm sure you are aware. It should be read with the following comment in mind:

"Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza... More than 5,000 [rockets] were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks... It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself"

Richard Falk has been criticised or denounced by so many countries and organisations, including the US, the UK, Canada, the EU and the UN Secretary General, with repeated calls demanding his resignation. It is hard to imagine that anyone still takes him seriously. An avid anti-Semitic, he is a confused individual who supports terrorism, churns out wrong analyses (his praise of Ayatollah Khomeini is a great example), and an enthusiastic supporter of conspiracy theories, such as the one regarding the 9/11 attacks. His true colours and heavy bias in relation to this conflict are very clear. Your reliance on such "experts" only helps to detract from your argument.

I will resist the temptation to return your personal jibes. Regardless of what I think of you personally it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But feel free to continue attacking me personally if you believe it strengthens your claims.

"....More than 5,000 [rockets] were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians live in the range of these attacks... It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself"

Between 2001 and 2014 - 28 people have been killed by Hamas rockets.

Not condoning them...just putting some perspective on the range and effectiveness of these "rockets".