Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'd say it's a fallacy because it takes choice out of the picture. On any "slope," people can choose to stop at any time, regardless of how slippery it is. It's not an argument built on logic, but an assessment of how people are and what they do. So if you argue that kids need boundaries and discipline, that they will keep pushing the limits if you show weakness as a parent, that's not a strictly logical argument, but it's still pretty valid.

Here's what I did, using what the other guy posted. Not every change has bracketed comments

Work Experience
2011 - Present Current [do you need both "present" and "current?"]
I currently work as a developer for <website>. They mainly do printing work for
various clients. As part of the web team, my job involves server administration [I'd say "act as server administratior and develop", but maybe that implies you're the only one doing it] and the development of ongoing software projects. Some of the sites I've worked on include:
<site1> <site2> <site3> and <site4>.

2010 - 2011 Past1

I consulted for a multimedia/software company called <website>, which operates in the Middle East and Europe. I worked on many web projects and on their internal IT infrastructure.

2008 - 2010 Past2

Past2 is a small company that owns a number of online stores. As a developer, I
maintained their sites and developed custom features or software as required. I was responsible for the following stores: <site1> <site2> <site3> <site4> and <site5>. I built these sites from scratch using osCommerse, which is an open-source cart program.

In addition to maintaining these sites, I performed technical support services in the office. When the company moved into a new office space, I set up their first office network, built the workstations and administered the websites. I eventually became the sole person responsible for all of their IT systems. I also assisted the sales team and answered phone calls as necessary.

2007 Young Uni: Student Mentor
This was a pilot scheme that targeted [high-school] [secondary-school] students. It aimed to raise interest in higher education by identifying potential opportunities for students.

Education
2005 - 2009 Glasgow Caledonian University, BSC (Hons) Computing
All modules were passed on the first attempt and I graduated with a 2.2.
The main modules over the duration of four years were as follows:
Artificial Intelligence and Simulated Behaviors, Interactive Multimedia, Degree Project (AI
centered), Networked Operating Systems Administration, Systems Programming, Software
Process Management, Component Based Software Development, Artificial Intelligence1,
Operating Systems and Communication Protocols, Objects & Algorithms, Database
Principles and Practice, Interactive Software Development, Object-Orientated Systems
Analysis & Design, Advanced Personal Development Planning and Skills, Structured Systems
Analysis and Design, Fundamental Programming Principles 2, Computer Technology,
Introduction to Professional Issues and Practice in Computing, Fundamental Programming
Principles 1, Discrete Mathematics 1.

2004 - 2005 Clydebank College, HNC Software development

2003 - 2004 Clydebank College, NC Automotive Engineering.

1998 - 2003 Braidfield High School.

Skills Profile - Technical skills
Software Development: Languages include C/C++, Java, Pascal (Delphi) and Prolog.

Familiarity in: XHTML, CSS, XML, JSON, PHP (Codeigniter & Zend), Smarty templates, SQL (T-SQL, MySQL, Oracle) RDBMSs, MongoDB, Javascript (using jQuery, Ext), Flash (AS2,3), PayPal /
Facebook / Google APIs.

I have experience using [or "in"; I've never heard of programming paradigms] different programming paradigms; procedural, object-orientated [isn't it oriented?] and even first-order logic. Using these different approaches has made it easier to learn new languages as well as develop solutions that use different languages and IDEs.

Software Design: At the beginning of my career I did not plan anything. I learned by getting stuck on a problem that needed to be solved [don't all problems need to be solved? Do you really need this sentence, anyway, given the next one?] After working on a few larger projects, I learned the benefits of planning and commenting code. This approach is less stressful and makes it easier to maintain and debug code. I also like to plan out a project on paper, even if it is just an overview or outline. I prefer to brainstorm with others involved on the project, establishing a reference point that improves coordination in the group.

Skills Profile - Soft skills
From a computing standpoint, a problem-solving ability is critical. When I have an idea or read a specification, I will sit down and think about the problem as a whole. I then try to figure out how to break things down so that the problem can be solved in different ways.
[Perhaps a brief example would illustrate this method better]

Effective communication is also important to me. Clear, understandable communication allows me to showcase my talents and value to the team/client.

Organisation is also extremely important. I can organise my time and resources properly so that I meet my deadlines and manage my priorities properly. I demonstrated this ability as the project manager for my degree project group.

Interests

I like to keep busy and try out new things when I get the chance. I have looked into the various
other technologies that exist. However, these technologies are primarily web based. I have developed a variety of things [applications? programs?] small and large, which includes a portfolio site
that I use to keep track of my work. My portfolio site is located at <my_site>.

I'm also interested in programming microcontrollers. With a basic understanding of
electronics it has given me something to work on that has almost endless possibilities for
experimentation.

For references, please contact 0123456789.

One trick I've learned from writing classes is to avoid nominalizations from gerunds [-ing words] and infinitive phrases [ verbs preceded by "to"] acting as nouns. Instead of saying "I have learned to" or "my responsibility is to", just say "I can" or "I do" unless it's totally inaccurate.

At 7/27/11 08:42 AM, bcdemon wrote: People that are biased towards Israel can ignore and forgive Israel for any/every thing. So saying Israel kills a lot of Palestinian children is a useless thing to say, because they (you, satanbrain, adrshepard and others) just chalk it up defending Israel and they ignore it.

But you haven't explained the circumstances of those deaths, that's why we question it. Simply giving a figure implies that there should not be any children deaths ever, and given the nature of the conflict that's an unrealistic demand. Hamas hides its weapons and personnel among civilians. That's not in dispute. Civilian casualties are inevitable.

If you want to make a point, you have to show that the IDF acted recklessly or carelessly in each case and could have achieved the same military objective without civilian deaths. It really isn't just about numbers, but methods. Ranger2 and I, and probably satanbrain, haven't seen enough evidence to condemn those methods.

Then there are people who think the amount of civilian casualties is irrelevant. In which case no amount of statistics or emotion is going to help.

As it should be. Serious matters should be analyzed using more than simple numbers and without regard to emotions. An objective understanding that civilian casualties are bad is sufficient.

At 7/26/11 07:57 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

in which for the very first time in our recorded history, has experienced an exponential growth of science, technology, space exploration, and general knowledge?

Where does this 'era' begin, exactly? Further, what growth has specifically been "exponential"?

Ack! Stop asking hard questions.

Are we prepared for this type of responsibility?

Why not?

You know, because of all the stuff...

At 7/24/11 02:14 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: nope, but our planet won't let us go on like this for much longer anyways.

You're making it sound like the Earth is consciously trying to get rid of humanity.

Sure is, just like in Avatar.

I think people that think about stuff like this never realize how incredibly difficult it is for humanity to die out or be permanently crippled. There isn't any crisis facing humanity that it hasn't faced already. The only difference is that we will know more about it before it happens and in absolute terms more lives are at stake (I doubt we'd reach plague-level percent population decreases).

So yeah, we're ready for anything that we can inflict upon ourselves. Not saying it won't hurt, but there will still be enough people around afterwards to move forward.

At 7/26/11 09:51 AM, bcdemon wrote: The person I was responding (YK-Blaze) to IMO is pro-Israel and was posting pro-Israel stats. So I responded with statistics from the other side.

His statistics came from the arm of a democratically elected government. Yours came from NGOs with no authority or oversight, who are merely echoing unverified numbers from an isolated region whose ruler's entire strategy is to exaggerate the number of civilian deaths.

I posted the "more Palestinian children are killed than all Israelis combined" thing to maybe open some eyes to the amount of killing that is happening.

The amount is irrelevant. The way it happens is important. Until you know the process, saying such and such number of kids died to each Israeli is meaningless. How many should die? Half as much? A third? What arbitrary number does it have to reach before you disapprove?

That and when was the last time you instructed satanbrain to be more neutral when discussing Palestinian/Israeli issues?

He's hopeless.

BTW, I like the neutrality in your signature pic.

Nothing's more neutral and objective than the truth.

At 7/25/11 02:54 PM, fatape wrote:

At 7/25/11 02:01 PM, adrshepard wrote: I would be in favor of mandatory organ donation for people living on public assistance, though.

Lol, people on public assistance shouldn't have the same rights of everyone else?

Why not? The rest of society is paying to maintain that body, why shouldn't it benefit if you die during that time? Treat it like a mortgaged house.

Anyhow, I would actually be in favor of it.When your dead your body dose not belong to you anymore since you don't exist in my opinion that makes your body a public good.

Confiscating the wealth of the very rich and donating it to charity would be a public good, too. It's a wholesale violation of individual rights, but at least a bunch of people would be fed at soup kitchens, right?

It's the same thing with people's remains, except instead of money, it's religious beliefs.

At 7/25/11 11:18 AM, djack wrote: It's win-win-win with the only "losers" being dead so they can't exactly complain about saving peoples lives.

Not everyone thinks that way, obviously. Freedom of religion includes abiding by individual beliefs, so long as they don't affect anyone else. That includes someone's remains. There is no legal obligation to help people or be generous, even when you're dead.
I would be in favor of mandatory organ donation for people living on public assistance, though.

I've studied to be a writer and I'd like to help but my trend micro antivirus says the download link is a dangerous page, and I don't question the trend micro.

Given your technical background, the writing may not be as important but if you put the text in a post I could help with tone or clarity.

At 7/23/11 08:49 PM, camobch0 wrote: Humanity could explore the depths of space and colonize the universe if we stopped bickering about religion and fighting wars over it, and instead spend all that time and money and energy advancing our technology and our information.

You're defining progress exclusively as scientific advancement. Here's an idea: let's enslave all the stupid people and confiscate their wealth. They'd work for free and we'd save tons of money to fund scientific research, conducted by people who passed a series of intelligence tests. I'd sure love to live in that advanced society.

At 7/23/11 12:27 PM, Jon-86 wrote: So your Javascript will be executing before the images load, you could refactor your page and jump through all kinds of hoops in order to get this to work, but smulses solution isn't a backup its a better more efficient way to do it.

I guess you're right. I just noticed now too that I didn't account for IE's event model, so the rollovers don't work at all in explorer. Thanks for the help.

Yeah, I suppose I could do that, but I've spent so much time on this code already that I really want to know why it doesn't work. I'll work on your solution as a backup.

I don't know if Javascript is too basic for this forum, but I'll try here first before registering on some other site.

I'm trying to create a preloader function that will allow my rollover effect for my menu buttons to happen seamlessly the first time. I've come across various suggestions on the internet but I can't get them to work; there's always a delay. Here's the code I'm using in a separate js file:

window.onload = preloader;

function addEvent(object, evName, fnName, cap) {
if (object.attachEvent)
object.attachEvent("on" + evName, fnName);
else if (object.addEventListener)
object.addEventListener(evName, fnName, cap);
}

function menuRoll(e) {
var evt = e || window.event;
var useString = evt.target.src.split(".jpg");
evt.target.src = useString[0] + "_over.jpg";
}

function menuRollOut(e) {
var evt = e || window.event;
var useString = evt.target.src.split("_over.jpg");
evt.target.src = useString[0] + ".jpg";
}

function preloader() {

var indexImg = new Array("images/ab_button_over.jpg", "images/bg_button_over.jpg", "images/hm_button_over.jpg", "images/rs_button_over.jpg", "images/wr_button_over.jpg");
var pageImg = new Array("../images/ab_button_over.jpg", "../images/bg_button_over.jpg", "../images/hm_button_over.jpg", "../images/rs_button_over.jpg", "../images/wr_button_over.jpg");
var runImg = new Image();

if (document.location == "http://www.website.com") {

for (i=0; i<indexImg.length; i++) {
runImg.src=indexImg[i].src;
}
} else {
for (i=0; i<pageImg.length; i++) {
runImg.src=pageImg[i].src;
}
}

var baseImg = document.getElementsByTagName("img");
var loadImg = new Image();
for (i=0; i<baseImg.length; i++) {
loadImg.src=baseImg[i].src;
}
var buttons = document.getElementsByName("menuButton")
;
for (i=0; i<buttons.length; i++) {
addEvent(buttons[i], "mouseover", menuRoll, false);
addEvent(buttons[i], "mouseout", menuRollOut, false);
}
}

Hopefully someone knows what I'm doing wrong. Thanks.

At 7/20/11 11:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/20/11 11:20 AM, adrshepard wrote: Not all war crimes are equally atrocious, and its not fair to claim Israel's alleged violations are just as bad as Hamas'.

But it's still a war crime, and should a war crime not be punished and everything be done to make sure it doesn't occur again? Just so we all understand each other.

Some things can't be prevented. If two sides are fighting a long, bitter conflict, no amount of regulation is going to prevent some captors from beating on prisoners now and again. The only time an entire force should be held accountable, as opposed to individuals in that force, is when actions considered war crimes become official or unofficial policy, and it's extremely difficult to prove something was condoned unofficially. If you look at Israel's alleged war crimes, you'll see they all come down to the actions of individuals (like the troops who tied the Palestinian kid to the car so people wouldn't throw rocks) or arguably legitimate tactics that on occasion cause civilians to suffer (like white phosphorous smoke screens and artillery strikes). On the other hand, Hamas has directly targeted civilians with suicide bombers and its current defense plan is little more than an indiscriminate, albeit ineffective, rocket barrage that has no tactical value other than to terrorize Israeli civilians.

My biggest issue is the tendency of people to lump the actions of Israel and Hamas or Hezbollah into a single category of war crimes with no distinctions. "War crime" is a loaded word and should be used carefully, just like "torture."

At 7/20/11 10:08 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 7/20/11 06:35 AM, satanbrain wrote: Is it the IDF policy to use human shields?

It used to be. But then in October 2005 the Israeli Supreme Court (not the IDF) banned the practice. They also banned the practice that the IDF referred to as the "neighbor practice" or "early warning". The IDF appealed the ban on using human shields.
Why they would appeal tactics that are an international crime (since the late 1940's) is beyond me.

That case only describes the practice shown in that video you linked to. Getting a civilian to knock on a door before a raid is not the same thing as hiding rocket launchers in a residential neighboorhood. Again, you're (though you aren't the only one) trying to argue that Israel's tactics are just as reprehensible as Hamas based on an inflexible, unrealistic characterization of the law.

Punching a POW in the face and cutting off his dick with a table saw are both technically war crimes, but one is far worse than the other. The former Israeli policy of using civilians to disguise raids is to me much more understandable and forgivable than launching attacks from densely populated areas or using hospitals and schools as weapons depots and headquarters. Not all war crimes are equally atrocious, and its not fair to claim Israel's alleged violations are just as bad as Hamas'.

At 7/19/11 11:00 AM, bcdemon wrote: Israels IDF has used Palestinians as human shields.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJa_vMbKl lk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-e ast-11807152

We've already been over this video. I've already pointed out that they pushed the guy out of the way as the soldiers went in the door first. That is not using him as a human shield, that is disguising their approach. If they forcibly made him enter before they themselves went inside, then he would be acting as a shield.

I pointed this out before, and you had no response. Will you refuse to learn a second time?

the only thing wrong that Israel did is killing citizens, BUT they tried to minimize it as much as possible.
the ratio of civilian/terrorist death was 1:30

That was back in 2007. In Operation Cast Lead (2009) the IDF killed approx. 1400 Palestinians, 709 of those were Hamas and affiliated militants.
I'll let you figure out that ratio.

If you believe Hamas propagandists and Gazan NGOs. Where do you think the UN and Amnesty Int. get their numbers from when no one is allowed in or out of Gaza? There's no independent verification, and Hamas, through its tactics and past actions, has proven that it will inflate civilian casualty figures for its own political ends. Why would you take the word of a bunch of oppressive thugs and terrorists over that of a democratic country with a free press and a culture that tolerates whistleblowing and reform? You seem to be under the impression that it would be easy for the IDF to just blatantly lie about reports drafted by thousands of its personnel. And what, the Gazans, living in a failed police state are much less susceptible to corruption and coercion?

At 6/15/11 02:12 PM, poxpower wrote: They should hand out condoms to kids for free. See what happens then. They did it in Thailand and it cut down the spread of AIDs like crazy: http://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaid ya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_
place.html

Thailand is also one of the most popular child prostitution destinations in the world, where it is unofficially tolerated. But who cares about that, right? At least the AIDS rate is down.

Anyway abstinence people are inevitably religiously-motivated.

Or they don't like the idea of schools telling kids that it's perfectly acceptable and understood that they will have underage sex. Nothing abstinence-only advocates say is misleading or incorrect. Kids already know what STDs and condoms are. They aren't difficult concepts to understand. There's no reason why someone receiving abstinence only education is going to not use a condom more than those who had comprehensive instruction. If anything, he will have less sex.

At 6/12/11 02:51 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: To me though, I have a hard time seeing how adrshepherd seems to be failing to address one of the more germane points of what is being brought up with this law: That being that the hospital is empowered to IGNORE an advanced directive (meant to legally set in stone the wishes of the patient) and then potentially be 100% protected against consequence for such actions.

It's not hard to see why; I HATE individual rights!

If I had to guess at the actual justification, I'd say its because public health services are meant for everybody, and no one can have a claim to an undue share of a physicians' or facilities resources. Even if they have the right insurance, the person still takes up the room, the supplies, and the time of the doctor and staff. If that time can be better spent helping people with greater chances of recovery, it makes sense to prioritize treating those patients. Of course, that reasoning alone would mean ignoring a substantial amount of people, but limiting it to the most obviously terminal cases sounds reasonable to me.

At 6/11/11 03:47 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: how the hell do you defend that.

If the person's bills are being paid by the state, and his condition is terminal, and expensive procedures only delay the inevitable for a few weeks or month while he's a vegetable, that's how.

These aren't the death panels people were upset about. In these cases, the medical futility of treatment is the main issue, whereas the feared death panels were driven purely by cost and not medical judgment, since the health system would be rationed.

At 6/8/11 04:26 PM, Warforger wrote:

Possibly, but unlikely, because the premise that the huge majority of IDF personnel would stay quiet about it is absurd.

Not saying ALL are, SOME are, same with all militaries.

SOME are what? It only takes a handful of people to destroy a coverup. Where is the damning testimony? Where are the whistleblowers? Where is the proof behind your accusations regarding Israeli tactics? That's what I'm looking for.

Typical play on the human mind's ability to recognize patterns without actually having any real evidence to prove it. I had some misconception, that doesn't fucking mean I don't have a clue where Israel is.

Not at all. Gaza is entirely different than the West Bank in nearly every way. This isn't even something that can be categorized as a minor screw up. You believed that there was an ongoing occupation of Gaza with regular "Israeli ground patrols." Indefensible.

What's stopping them from moving the equipment? What's stopping them from getting more weapons?

Maybe because they are heavy and it takes more than a few minutes to move tons of ammunition and supplies?

No, it isn't. As people, the Serbs and Palestinians are no different than any other group, and by no means do they have the greatest claim to being "wronged." I don't know about daily life in the Balkans, but I can tell you that almost every government in the Middle East has actively encouraged hostility towards Israel, no matter how mindless it may be, primarily because it's a distraction from their own oppressive regimes. This rage and anguish is almost entirely artificial. The only legitimate grievances are those coming from people who allegedly suffer from Israeli treatment now. The events of 1948 are long finished. Anyone who cites the date as a reason for his anger is either natually hateful or is being manipulated.

Actually it's more brought on by the people, since the Palestinians are also Arabs so they feel for them. The reason it's brought on by the people is because while governments like Jordan and pre-protests Egypt are friendly to Israel, the people often times want to be hostile towards Israel.

Right, which is why the arab countries freely welcome Palestinian immigrants to their country to settle down and start new lives as citizens. Then they turn around and condemn the Israelis for allegedly forcing the Palestinians to live under the same restrictions that they themselves placed on Palestinian refugees in their territory.

But anyway, what I'm saying is that people are still mad about what went on in 1948, just like people are still mad about the Holocaust,

Who? No one blames Germany for the holocaust anymore. Certain jews are just paranoid, and I'm sure it's the basis for a good deal of Zionist sentiment in Israel, not that I can really blame them, since their history as vicims extends thousands of years.

Palestinians want to just resettle the land again, just like it had been for centuries........You do see that the entire conflict is just people butthurt that they were forced off their land a long time ago right?

That makes sense for a while, until the people who actually have claim to being wronged are long dead and buried. Doesn't it strike you as a bit absurd how someone would be willing to blow himself up over land which he never even had, targeting people who at most were children when this "injustice" took place? That's not a normal reaction. The issues in the West Bank continue, but the original problems of 1948 are nearly dead. Arguing for a "right of return", among other things, for people who never actually lived there is just absurd.

This is what I'm saying, Israel can't go to war over every dispute it has and it only goes to war when it has no other choice, that's why it holds territories of foreign countries because it can use them as barganing chips for peace, if it could end hostilities instead of going to war, since only a retard wants to keep going to war over and over again, then it will.

That can be said of every country. Your original point was that Israel isn't powerful. You haven't pointed out anything about Israel that couldn't be said about generally powerful nations.

Ok here is a map of their defeat of Egypt's third army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yom_Ki ppur_War_map-2.png

Which shows teeny bits of land that probably could have been easily recovered given the state of Egypt's forces at the time.

That's not far off at all......Another useful thing to look at is "Results" when you look at these articles
"In Israel, despite impressive operational and tactical achievements on the battlefield, the war effectively ended its sense of invincibility and complacency.

Yeah, because it didn't win in 6 days. It got caught off-guard and still made gains in a matter of weeks.

Gee. That shows how far off I am. Again, the war showed the turning point for Israel that it wasn't the greatest ever and that the Arabs were learning.

This is growing into a pointless sematic argument. I never said Israel was invincible, and now you're going to try to transform your earlier remarks that "Israel isn't very strong militarily" to "Israel's victories weren't always easy." You'll probably omit the bizarre tangent of "Israel isn't strong because it couldn't fight everyone at once and because it prefers diplomacy to costly military action.

A strategy which would allow...what, settlement in Gaza on a far lesser scale? The same Gaza which Israel eventually surrendered after decades of gradually abandoning control over?

Well first off, it wasn't mass settlement of Sinai, it was a simple border town, secondly yes, if you gave up Sinai the Egyptians have access to Gaza.

There were 7000 people living in Sinai when it the settlements were dismantled. Not a lot given the area, but still many. It would help if you could describe what you meant by these territories being part of a purely strategic move. If they only ever acquired them to trade them back later, why allow people to settle there?

"An Israeli?" Well, shit, how can anyone disagree with your conclusions about Israeli society when confronted with a poorly translated blurb from an online-only site unaffiliated with any Jewish political organization or official government agency?

Other then the museum?

The website isn't affiliated with the museum. There is a museum, but that in itself doesn't say much. Is it explicitly celebratory of Irgun terrorist attacks? If it is, and the Israeli government funds it, then you may have a point. If it's a private museum, then you can't use it to describe the sentiments of the Israelis as a whole.

At 6/5/11 04:59 PM, Warforger wrote:

Of course you did. I asked how the IDF, with its 180,000 personnel, could prevent any leaks to the media through whistleblowers about it's allegedly barbaric practices. You responded by saying the UN and Palestinians get upset. That doesn't answer my question.

Erm, I'm saying there's quite possibly something going on....

Possibly, but unlikely, because the premise that the huge majority of IDF personnel would stay quiet about it is absurd.

At 5/30/11 09:51 AM, adrshepard wrote:

You mean at best, I'm wondering though if that was the case why do Pro-Israeli's tend to need to try to make her out as a terrorist?

I don't think she was a terrorist. A fool, but not a terrorist.
Probably they are overreacting to portrayals that she was some fearless martyr.

Oh whoops, my bad. I thougtht I saw a video of them in it but turned out to be in West Bank.

"Whoops, my bad" doesn't cover it. I can't imagine how anyone knowledgable about the situation in Gaza could think it was literally occupied, especially given that the most recent conflict erupted from a border incursion.

A weapons cache or communications center would be two examples.

Um. What? Ok "hey guys move out of that place where your weapons cache is because we're going to blow it up" what's stopping them from like moving out?

The people inside could escape, but theyd have to leave most of their equipment to be destroyed.

While YOU may not think that the grievances die after a new generation, the PEOPLE IN CANAAN do and it DOES happen. THIS is simple fact.

No, it isn't. As people, the Serbs and Palestinians are no different than any other group, and by no means do they have the greatest claim to being "wronged." I don't know about daily life in the Balkans, but I can tell you that almost every government in the Middle East has actively encouraged hostility towards Israel, no matter how mindless it may be, primarily because it's a distraction from their own oppressive regimes. This rage and anguish is almost entirely artificial. The only legitimate grievances are those coming from people who allegedly suffer from Israeli treatment now. The events of 1948 are long finished. Anyone who cites the date as a reason for his anger is either natually hateful or is being manipulated.

No. You don't seem to understand. The only reason Israel looks good is because it only goes to war when the war is inevitable, and then attacks first because if Israel loses any of its own land it's going to cost them greatly.

By that reasoning, there's no such thing as a "strong" country, because it can't take on everyone else at once, and no country actively seeks permanent warfare. History is full of instances where leaders chose their battles carefully, then struck quickly and effectively. That does not make them militarily "weak."

On top of this the previous war with Egypt the Yom Kippur war ended in a stalemate with Egyptian forces on the Israeli bank and Israeli forces on the Egyptian bank with Egypt going at it solo, so they're learning and Israel won't be able to fight them off forever.

Christ, even a 5 minute look at Wikipedia shows how far off you are. The Israelis were in the midst of encircling and destroying Egypt's third army, while simultaneously holding territorial gains in Syria. The combined Arab forces outnumbered the Israelis over a factor of two, and they suffered substantially higher casualties.
But no, that doesn't mean they know how to fight a war or anything...That would conflict with your childish animosity against Israel.

AGAIN! it wasn't in Zionist claims and it was a strategic move more then any other.

So those plans to deposit 200,000 settlers into Yamit (according to wikipedia) in Sinai were what, just clerical errors?

Not Zionist, but to settle the land to surround Gaza with Israeli's. Again a strategic move.

A strategy which would allow...what, settlement in Gaza on a far lesser scale? The same Gaza which Israel eventually surrendered after decades of gradually abandoning control over?

......So? They have a museum in Israel, let's see an Israeli post on it

"An Israeli?" Well, shit, how can anyone disagree with your conclusions about Israeli society when confronted with a poorly translated blurb from an online-only site unaffiliated with any Jewish political organization or official government agency?

From actually looking at the job growth statistics for Pennsylvania (maybe its similar in other states) You should at least get some college education because that's where the vast majority of job growth will be. Even if you only got an associates degree you would have a huge advantage over someone who only went to high school.

I don't think the question is if you should go to college, but what you should study at college. It's very easy to spend a huge sum of money on a BA because you're interested in the subject only to find out you've severely limited your career path. Stay away from the humanities if you're more concerned with career preparation than intellectual enrichment. Do not be taken in by fascinating literature and philosophy courses.

At 5/29/11 07:09 PM, Warforger wrote: .........What the fuck? I did not say anything of the like.

Of course you did. I asked how the IDF, with its 180,000 personnel, could prevent any leaks to the media through whistleblowers about it's allegedly barbaric practices. You responded by saying the UN and Palestinians get upset. That doesn't answer my question.

Provide a documented example.

Rachael Corrie I think?

That was bulldozer in what was essentially a construction accident. That is not at all the same. At the worst, the driver screwed up, as members of her activist group said that the IDF had always been very careful not to endanger any of them before.

You see, aviewskewed? This is inevitably what happens when people start throwing around loaded words. After a while, people like Warforger don't even know the difference anymore.

Considering Israeli troops patrol the area it gets a bit suspicous.

You've just reiterated my point.

No, you specifically criticized Israel for "only" telephoning Palestinians near the target before launching a strike.

Why would they need to do this strike if there were no rocket attacks at the time? Surely if they can telephone a resident that they should evacuate their homes then they're in no urgent situation.

A weapons cache or communications center would be two examples.

Ok cool, nothing you have said right there had anything to do with what I said. Again, my point is that your opinion doesn't matter, the fact is that the grievances ARE carried on through generations because that is what the people believe. Nothing you say is going to change that. Forgive me if I thought you could read.

I think I'll choose real-world examples over your screeching insistences about what is true and not true.

You think an obvious policy would show? Again that would be a strategic blunder....

Anyway there's this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citize ns_of_Israel#Economic_Status

You could say the same thing about most minorities around the world. You can't fault the government for that, especially since that section you've pointed out identifies measures Israel has taken to try to improve Israeli Arabs' situations.

Easily defended against? Is that a joke? The only reason Israel looks so good militarily is that it chooses its battles and it plans and prepares for them

So they're ONLY powerful militarily because they have exceptionally skilled commanders and advanced technology. Got it.

AGAIN! it wasn't in Zionist claims and it was a strategic move more then any other.

So those plans to deposit 200,000 settlers into Yamit (according to wikipedia) in Sinai were what, just clerical errors?

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

Ok, other then the Irgun being celebrated in Israel and absorbed into the IDF?

Celebrated by who? All Israelis? Is it the subject of an official holiday?
Do you know when it was absorbed? 1948! Even a 15 year old fanatical Irgun member would be in his late sixties by now. The group's integration has no relevance anymore.

At 5/29/11 12:32 PM, Warforger wrote: .......None? Other then Israel like having the highest human rights violations according to the UN, other then Israel having so little support in Palestine etc. etc.

Gee, the whole "whistleblowing" concept is a bit too much for you?
I guess you believe that every one of the nearly 200,000 IDF soldiers is a bloodthirsty savage who would unquestionably slaughter a Palestinian in cold blood for no reason, and not one of them would ever say anything about it to anyone, making it the single largest ongoing conspiracy in the history of mankind.

Of course peaceful protesters are terrorists in Israel's eyes as well, often times people flood the roof so that Israel doesn't fire a missile at them and then Israel does it in the name of counter terrorism. That kinda gets suspicious at times don't you think?....

Provide a documented example.

That's retarded. "Hurr hurr ok we're going to just destroy every building in Gaza n those terrorists can't fire at us nothing wrong with that at all". Gaza is occupied, why you would need to fire missiles at all in territory YOU control is rather suspicious

You see, aviewskewed? This is inevitably what happens when people start throwing around loaded words. After a while, people like Warforger don't even know the difference anymore.

You mean they've been given more warning by an enemy than has been the case in nearly every conflict in human history? Dear GOD, those Israelis are bastards!

That wasn't the point. The point was Israel is just destroying infrastructure for no clear reason at all.

No, you specifically criticized Israel for "only" telephoning Palestinians near the target before launching a strike.

That's your opinion, your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to deciding other peoples opinions, to all of them the grievance carries on and both sides use the "BUT MAH ANCESTAS WUH HURRR LONGS TIME AGOS"

Forgive me for assuming you knew an iota of world history. If you did, you'd understand that the vast majority of peoples who were the first to live in a geographic area have been pushed aside, absorbed, or wiped out. Yet the Iroquois have been pretty peaceful lately. And the Saxons, and the Phoenicians, and the Babylonians, and the Aztecs, and the Celts, and the Byzantines, and the Minoans.

Not on any official level, from what I've read. Sure, Jews and those who have served in the IDF may have more perks, but that's not the same as discrimation against anyone. There probably are Israelis who personally discriminate against Arabs, but there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent that, only correct it after the fact.

You mean like other then those Arabs living in inferior slums?

Identify the mechanism of how official Israeli government policy produces this.

Here's the problem, they make even more civilian casualties! Surely if they were trying to limit them they wouldn't have to fire missiles into territory they occupy?

I can't even begin to respond to this. I'm thinking of all the possible lines of thought that could lead you to say this nonsense, but all of them orignate from some unfathomable level of ignorance and misinformation. I'm just at a loss.

Yes I did. You know why he did that right? Two reasons 1. Sinai wasn't part of the Zionist Israel.

It had Israeli settlements, which Menachem forcibly removed for the sake of peace with Egypt, an enemy whose army Israel could easily defend against. He SURRENDERED land with ISRAELIS living on it and you still claim he was a radical terrorist with no desire for peace? Justifiably condemn him and Irgun for what thejavascript:BBSPost.Save();y did prior to 1950, but that part of him was apparently long gone before he took public office.

In short:

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

At 5/29/11 12:58 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

"Subsequent conclusions fault the intelligence community for failing to adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties that underlay the NIE's conclusions, and for succumbing to "group think," in which the intelligence community adopted untested (and, in hindsight, unwarranted) assumptions about the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs. The committee identified a failure to adequately supervise analysts and collectors, and a failure to develop human sources of intelligence (HUMINT) inside Iraq after the departure of international weapons inspectors in 1998."

Essentially the report found that the intelligence supplied did not support the claims being made

I have no idea why you would quote this excerpt to support your argument because it contradicts the point you are trying to make. According to this, policymakers including the neoconservatives you're attacking are not really at fault because they could only make judgments based on what the intelligence services provided them. You would have to excuse celebrated neo-conservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and any other Bush Administration official.

You would still have a problem if you were arguing that the intelligence branches themselves are full of neo-conservatives who deliberately withheld doubts and uncertainty from policy makers. If people in key positions were influencing analysts conclusions, then you would expect that the committe would find there was too much supervision, not too little.

...Essentially the neo-conservative media wishes to scare the populace into believing the Barack is "not from America" "A Marxist" or "A secret Muslim" in order to rally support for the base. This relates back to the original Strauss theory of false dichotomization of the opposition en mass.

You mean people depict poltical adversaries with inaccurate and deceptive labels and associations? Political groups have done that for hundreds of years. Breaking down an opponent into simple buzzwords is good politicking.

Am I the only one who finds the premise of this thread a bit absurd? Sure, you can say that certain people are very worried about national security and the costs of inaction, but concluding that their primary goal is to control people through fear is a bit much. Believe it or not, the US was not the only country to believe Saddam possessed a WMD capability. Many foreign intelligence agencies, including those from neighboring Arab countries, came to similar conclusions. I don't see how you can say people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld could be responsible for that. If you read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq, you'll see that the assessments were not simply rumors.
Besides, even if you were right about their motivations, they apparently are no threat. Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act only affect a microscopic percentage of Americans, and even then half the country is concerned about it. You could hardly identify today's political environment as fear-driven, reactive patriotism.

At 5/29/11 04:51 AM, Boredy-Mcbored wrote: A common argument against immigration is that illegal immigrant DO NOT pay taxes. Where is this argument coming from? An immigrant that lives in a house pays property taxes. An immigrant that buys from the local walmart pays income tax. Do these not count?

How exactly is an illegal immigrant going to buy a house?
True, illegal immigrants pay taxes associated with purchases, like sales tax, cigarette taxes, gasoline taxes, etc.

"But they don't pay income tax!" Yes, they do. Not every illegal immigrant is a day laborer or a house maid. There are plenty of people who work corporate jobs just like the rest of us.

Plenty, but they are the extreme minority. Most are day laborers in the contruction and agricultural sectors. A small percentage do file tax returns, believe it or not.

In fact, I find it FUNNY how people want illegals to STOP working these jobs because its preventing them to pay the government for the "thousands of dollars they take away from legal Americans".

Illegal immigrants are almost exclusively poor, with low income potential. Even if they were legal American citizens, they still would not contribute enough in taxes to pay for what they would bring in infrastructure, social welfare, and education costs. Our system depends on a certain level of middle to high-income earners, and adding more poor people only increases the burden. Thats the strongest argument against illegal immigration, since no one considers treating them as a separate category of citizens with fewer entitlements to be an option.

At 5/27/11 09:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm having a hard time with how Israel has a "right" to operate militarily in territory it does not actually own. To me it seems like trying to say the US would have the right to go set up at the Mexican border and decide what can and can't go into Mexico.

I don't see how those ideas relate. If the US and Mexico were in conflict, then sure, the US could stop and inspect shipments coming into Mexico as part of a blockade. My original point was Israel is not unreasonable to demand it conducts the inspections itself, regardless of whether foreign groups say it's safe.

But as you yourself just pointed out, they cannot defend themselves militarily. They have a foreign power occupying, in their minds this power has hostilely taken away their property and their rights...

By your reasoning no war should ever end, because the populace would just keep fighting to the last man. Survival will ultimately trump pride and indignance. While the people in Gaza aren't in danger of being annilhilated or enslaved, they are miserable, and the costs of relief are comparatively low (the Israeli terms for ending the blockade are pretty reasonable). I don't understand how they can't see that Hamas is the biggest obstacle. Are they so loyal to Hamas or so hateful of Israel that they would rather suffer under a blockade than make any concessions?

The alternative is to submit to their demands and legitimize decades of terrorism.

I think revolutions like Egypt and Tunisia show us that an educated populace who realize their leaders aren't working for their benefit show us a potential new route to reform in the middle east. I'm not saying that's a fait accompli, we don't know for sure yet. But I think the option exists, hence why I charge false dilemma here.

Sure, but those were grassroots revolutions. Besides, I can't think of any better way to strengthen Hamas than to lift the blockade, giving them the chance to say "See? Your faith in us was rewarded and we have succeded in defeating the Israelis." No one there is going to say, "Gee, those Israelis are real humanitarians for letting us import and export everything again. We should reassess our hostility to that country."

No country is going to waver in the face of aggression, especially when its survival isn't threatened in the slightest.

If Israel isn't really threatened...then why is the argument I keep hearing them make "defense"? Especially people like satanbrain who would have me to believe terrorists are constantly after him and will burn Israel to the ground any day now.

Well, satanbrain is a nut who gives Israel supporters a bad name. The defense they refer to is that of their daily life, which rocket attacks disrupt. I meant "survival" to mean the existence of the nation as a whole.

They seem to be wanting it both ways...so I doubt they're going to ever fully renounce. Personally, I want to see Hamas gone, but realistically it's never going to happen as long as the average Palestinian thinks Hamas gives them some benefit.

That's true, but the blockade has backed Israel into a corner. It can't lift it now without appearing weak and giving a serious propaganda victory to Hamas, but maintaining it forever just makes Israel look bad. If I were Israel, I would saturate the Gazans daily with the Israeli terms to remind them of what their suffering is about.

Unlike Hamas, Israel does not deliberately target civilians to "send a message." It tries to focus its power against those directly responsible for hostilities.

Except when it shoots at, and blows up buildings that credible evidence is obtained there was never any terrorists hiding in amiright?

Given the terrorists' strategy, I'm willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt. Israeli society is open enough that any deliberate effort to increase direct civilian casuatlies would come out eventually, which suggests that the IDF is at least trying to limit the deaths of bystanders.

Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Then why is it pretty much an accepted conclusion that it is?

Because most of the people making those conclusions have little to no stake in the matter. In their view, any suffering is bad, and the reasons for it or the consequences of easing it don't matter.

Here's something that says the opposite. If the link doesn't work, let me know. I think it should.

For one thing, Israel doesn't control "all access" to Gaza, just most of it.
Also, this document doesn't discuss exactly what would constitute "control" of Gaza infrastructure. Wouldn't Israel still technically control water and electricity if it came from outside Gaza's borders? Controlling fuel and imports/exports are the logical results of a blockade, entirely different from an occupation. I'm not sure what it means to control "radio and tv frequencies," either. I know Hamas has its own radio station in Gaza, and I know they have shut down several others that were apparently sympathetic to Fatah.
Israel reserves the right to take military action because it does not accept Hamas as a legitimate government, but a terrorist group. I don't think there has to be a formal declaration of war against criminal entities; it's assumed they are conflict.

Even in a state of peace, Israel would still technically control Gaza's utilities since it doesn't have enough power and water plants. In war, it's perfectly legal to vigorously defend one's borders on both sides, and attempt to blockade the enemy country. Gaza doesn't have any aircraft so it doesn't have any airspace to be occupied to begin with. It's a perfect illustration of how outdated international laws of conflict are.

Under the law as stands, Gaza is occupied. You can't just pick and choose what laws to obey, certainly they can be changed, but as it stands now, Gaza is occupied.

Under those definitions, yes, Gaza is occupied. But the common meaning of occupation isn't based on those definitions. For instance, the occupation of Gaza is vastly different than the German occupation of France in WWII, but "occupation" is a loaded word with its own set of implications. Those associations do not hold true for what is happening in Gaza, and I think there should be a distinction in non-academic or non-legal discussions. It's the same thing for words like "torture" or "illegal" or "kill."

Legal arguments are totally academic. They never have and never will be respected enough to decide any conflict of worth, especially when the sides are so incredibly lopsided.

So...the law doesn't matter...I don't know how to argue with anybody who says rules and laws don't matter.

Laws that are never enforced don't really matter. It ceases being a law when there's no penalty for breaking it. It becomes more of a suggestion that can be ignored.

At 5/26/11 11:52 PM, Warforger wrote:

I have never heard of any quotas on the approved food items that can be sent.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c ontext=va&aid=21799

Well doesn't seem to be the case.

Uh, that graphic is for cattle feed, not human food. The rest of the translated documents don't say anything about limiting Gazan calorie intake or quotas on approved items. The content of the article is completely bogus, and no wonder "no major news organizations have reported on it" because the released documents contain nothing of substance.

We both know that terrorists hide themselves and store weapons in these areas precisely because there's less chance they will be struck.

Or Israel lies and does it in the name of counter terrorism....Maybe there could be some cases but I'm just going to guess most are just bullshit, destroying infrastructure just because one guy is firing a few rockets that don't do that much damage doesn't seem to be efficent, surely a sniper would make more sense.

Are you deliberately being dense? Rather than believe the obvious notion that groups like Hamas DEPEND on civilian casualties for their campaign against Israel (it's all they have, really, since it's weak militarily and Israeli security is so tight) and therefore will put them in the line of fire for propaganda purposes, you instead decide it's more likely there's a vast conspiracy in the Israeli armed forces to manufacture claims of hostiles just to bomb certain places, and despite the hundreds, if not thousands of potential whistleblowers, none have said anything about it.
Your comment about the sniper is simply absurd. Sending in special forces on an extremely high risk operation with low chance of success (the target could easily slip away in the time it would take to organize and execute such an operation) goes far beyond stupidity when the target can be taken out with a guided missle in a matter of minutes.

On top of this often times the only warning Israel gives to people whose HOMES are about to be destroyed is some phone call, that's it

You mean they've been given more warning by an enemy than has been the case in nearly every conflict in human history? Dear GOD, those Israelis are bastards!

The guy who I was talking too wasn't you if you realize that. I was speaking figuratively, as if he represents those people. The problem though with your assumption is that those actions still effect the present and many times weren't very legal or morale. It's like in Bosnia.....

I know, but it's not just one "Israel" or one "Palestinian." As far as I'm concerned, guilt and responsibility don't span generations. If I'm living on land that was stolen 50 years ago by my grandfather, and both he and the original landholders are dead, that grievance dies with them. If I choose to return it to the descendant of the original holder, that's being generous, not just.

Thats what the Israeli Arabs are,

Who again are discriminated against in Israel....

Not on any official level, from what I've read. Sure, Jews and those who have served in the IDF may have more perks, but that's not the same as discrimation against anyone. There probably are Israelis who personally discriminate against Arabs, but there's not a whole lot the government can do to prevent that, only correct it after the fact.

but most Palestinians do not want to be integrated with the Israelis.

Well yah, same goes for Israeli's and that's probably a reason. I never said the Palestinians were in the right either.

But you suggested a program for Palestinian integration as a possible solution.

......Which turn out to be more effective and deadly then the actual Hamas rocket strikes, which makes it suspicious where they're deploying rockets that attack a huge area to hit a few guys in a room firing outdated rockets

That makes no difference. There's no law saying that the Israelis can't strike back against rocket attacks until someone gets hurt. Israel's responsibility to limit civilian casualties is mitigated by the risks posed to its own forces. Usually they use guided missiles and artillery, which are reasonably accurate. It's the same reason cops don't have to wait for someone to get shot before they can use lethal force to take down a suspect.

*sigh* nope. The guy I'm thinking of was the leader of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that leveled a huge chunk of a hotel with British delegates in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Be gin

That's basically like Hamas.

No, the Irgun was substantially different, in that it did not seek to kill civilians, and the British were it's primary targets. All this took place over 60 years ago.

Now tell me, if Israel wants peace, why did it elect people like that?

Menachem Begin was elected in 1977, and you're using that to characterize the people of Israel in 2011. Do I need to explain how absurd that is?

Oh, and during his tenure he signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt, in which Israel relinquished the Sinai Peninsula. Begin later recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. But of course you knew that, right?

At 5/26/11 01:56 AM, Warforger wrote: Yes, filtered so that they just have enough food without plunging into widespread starvation.

I have never heard of any quotas on the approved food items that can be sent.

The problem is the "defending" part. Too many times has Israel demolished houses in the name "counter-terrorism", too many times has Israel destroyed schools, hospitals, and docks with rocket attacks, they seem to be trying to get away with as much as they can. You can hide under the denial blanket of "Counter-terrorism" but that just makes things worse.

We both know that terrorists hide themselves and store weapons in these areas precisely because there's less chance they will be struck.

Nope. They're angry because you're in Palestine, you came in and forced people away from their land to claim your own land during the time when Nationalistic idea's made sense in people's minds, even though in practice and reasoning it makes none.

Who's "you?" This happened decades ago, and the victims and the decision makers are all old or dead.

You continue to ruin their lives further and further. If for example there was an idea to integrate the Palestinians into Israeli society for example

Thats what the Israeli Arabs are, but most Palestinians do not want to be integrated with the Israelis. You remember that issue with building a road on unoccupied land that would make it easier to build that train? Even after the Israeli court ruling that said infrastructure developments had to help Palestinians as well it's still hard as hell to do anything because the Palestinians are so stubborn.

and not constantly alienate and antagonize them it wouldn't be as bad, but instead what you have is an equivalent of Bosnia, all sides did atrocoties which people use as motivation to commit more atrocities

Limiting building permits and setting up checkpoints in the West Bank are not atrocities. The Palestinians respond with violence targeted against civilians while Israel targets those who carry out that violence. The two parties are not equally savage.

You know what's funny? Israeli's have used human shields

In one documented instance, after which the soldiers were prosecuted. Hamas and Hezbollah don't prosecute anyone for using human shields because it is the backbone of their entire strategy.

fired rockets into Gaza and West Bank

In targeted strikes.

and elected Terrorists. Are you sure you're not as bad?

Not the same, even if these people you're thinking of are terrorists in the classic definition (I'm guessing they're people who had some experience in the militia groups and mobs early in Israel's existence) they are not and never were part of a deliberate terrorist organization like Hamas.

All your characterizations of Israel depend on loaded terminology. If detained prisoners are roughed up a little, it's a war crime on the same level of an organized torture program. If there's any doubt as to the amount of force applied to a surgical strike, it's the same as suicide bombing a bus full of civilians. If a strike across the Gaza border kills two suspected bomb makers, it's the same as a barrage of rockets onto Israeli cities. You can't or won't make distinctions (which require firm moral judgments), which is why conversations with you about Israel never go anywhere.

At 5/23/11 01:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes it was. There are clear and numerous examples where Israel in it's occupation of Gaza stopped perfectly legitimate, non-weapon humanitarian supplies from getting through. They have admittedly gotten much better about this, but it does not change that they used to block it, and still make it difficult for it to pass.

No, there aren't, unless you can find instances when Israel itself cleared the shipments but held them up for no reason other than to make the Gazans suffer. Israel has the right to let it's own security forces have the final word on what is and isn't legitimate.

Did you ever think the people support Hamas because they think there's no other alternative to protect themselves?

Protect themselves from what? The IDF? It's impossible for the Palestinians to defend themselves militarily. Supporting militants whose actions provoke attacks is the worst possible way to safeguard yourself.

Right, because research is for pussies and idiots. So much better to just shoot at anything Palestinian and assume there's no other alternatives. You make me sick.

The alternative is to submit to their demands and legitimize decades of terrorism. No country is going to waver in the face of aggression, especially when its survival isn't threatened in the slightest. If Hamas renounced terrorism, then it'd be far less humiliating for Israel to make concessions.

If they support hamas, they will be harmed by their own actions and they'll deserve it.

Nice attitude. You realize Hamas says the same thing about you and Israel? You make the same arguments as your enemy. But then somehow claim your "better".

He is better, government and society aside, by virtue of how his country fights wars. Unlike Hamas, Israel does not deliberately target civilians to "send a message." It tries to focus its power against those directly responsible for hostilities. That doesn't mean the Gazans should be protected from every single consequence of war, though, like economic stagnation from the blockade. If they truly do have a voice in the government but the conflict continues, then their suffering is the price of pride.

If gaza was occupied it was possible. Since gaza isn't, it happens.

It is. Stop it already.

Not in any meaningful sense of the word. Most of the criteria for occupation don't make sense when applied to very tiny countries almost totally geographically surrounded by an enemy state. Even in a state of peace, Israel would still technically control Gaza's utilities since it doesn't have enough power and water plants. In war, it's perfectly legal to vigorously defend one's borders on both sides, and attempt to blockade the enemy country. Gaza doesn't have any aircraft so it doesn't have any airspace to be occupied to begin with. It's a perfect illustration of how outdated international laws of conflict are.

We were discussing legal, not moral. I clearly stated this. You're changing the issue now.

Legal arguments are totally academic. They never have and never will be respected enough to decide any conflict of worth, especially when the sides are so incredibly lopsided.