There is no such thing as a disproportionate response to your enemies. Fighting a war half asses is not going to solve anything. You either wipe the floor with your enemies as hard as you can, or you just prolong the conflict for 60 years. Oh wait, thats exactly what has happened.

When you have a group of people who have sworn to destroy you (Hamas), what is the proper response?

quote Cheesysoapopra

There is no such thing as a disproportionate response to your enemies. Fighting a war half asses is not going to solve anything. You either wipe the floor with your enemies as hard as you can, or you just prolong the conflict for 60 years. Oh wait, thats exactly what has happened.

When you have a group of people who have sworn to destroy you (Hamas), what is the proper response?

Non-violent resistance.

quote Wikipedia

In 1906, the Transvaal government promulgated a new Act compelling registration of the colony's Indian population. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on 11 September that year, Gandhi adopted his still evolving methodology of satyagraha (devotion to the truth), or non-violent protest, for the first time, calling on his fellow Indians to defy the new law and suffer the punishments for doing so, rather than resist through violent means. This plan was adopted, leading to a seven-year struggle in which thousands of Indians were jailed (including Gandhi), flogged, or even shot, for striking, refusing to register, burning their registration cards, or engaging in other forms of non-violent resistance. While the government was successful in repressing the Indian protesters, the public outcry stemming from the harsh methods employed by the South African government in the face of peaceful Indian protesters finally forced South African General Jan Christiaan Smuts to negotiate a compromise with Gandhi.

To quote Fallout: "War never changes". So the only way to really change things is to resist war.

How do these concepts of proportionality come about? Does it mean that if a guy shoots me in the arm, and I return fire and hit him in the head, my action is disproportionate?

Is targeting Hamas and inevitably killing civilians (Israel) the same as targeting all Israelis without discrimination(Hamas)?

How do these *bleep* concepts that are so contrary to the survival instinct evolve in this world? What would happen if they were applied back in 1940s?

I fully agree with cheesy, there is no way to really end a war unless you exterminate them. Because the hatred will still exist, and the children will replenish the ranks 10 years later. It will continue. You cant use non-violent resistance with 2 races that have been fighting for over 2000 years. The arabs want the jews dead, and they will stop at nothing. Israel tried non-violent resistance many times and Hamas and Hezbollah continues to launch rockets, then as soon as Israel has had enough they attack then these whiny little terrorists cry wolf. Seriously, the only viable solution is extermination. Just like what the US did to the Native americans. The US systematically murdered the 99% of the native americans during manifest destiny. Look how the roman's or greek's won wars, they exterminate the soldiers, children and babies so that they don't replenish the ranks and continue fighting. If you look at the history of war, its almost impossible to fight an enemy like Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.. because they are not afraid to die and they would sacrifice themselves to kill many. Different kind of enemy and their hatred for Israel will never stop. So the only other plausible way is extermination or absolute control.

There are ways to end wars without exterminations. You can find diplomatic methods. Even for a country you conquer, you can find peace; the most expedite method is to give the client country representation in your government or combine currencies with them. Alexander the Great figured that out. Failing that, you can get your citizens to out-reproduce them.

Wars breed more violence; not diplomacy.

Not to get to into it, but Hamas and Hezbollah killed more diplomatic interactions than the Israelis have, in recent years. The Israelis canceled and walked out of peace talks numerous times; you can't pin this all on Hamas. You might not realize that the people in Gaza had all of their water diverted away to Israel. They have been pushed to war. Of course, this current situation is just after effects of the Six Day War and tons of other history, as you say...

But to fix some errors in your statement, it was actually viruses more than anything else that wiped out the Native Americans. Also, there wasn't a 'group of Native Americans.' They were many different cultures, peoples and civilizations. Euro's played them off one another; they did not fight them as a whole. Back then North America was as populated as Europe was, but as I said, it was mostly the viruses that decimated them.

Also regarding Romans and Greeks, you are incorrect. A large part of why the Romans and Greeks were so successful Empire builders was that they were great at showing magnanimity and fairness to the people they conquered -- that's why people remained under Roman control for so long: because they became well integrated by there conquerors. Not because they were violent and killed babies and such.

You might be mistakenly thinking of Sparta versus Athens. Sparta was razed to the ground, and had their fields salted and babies killed etc., after three long wars (I think it was.) But this was precisely because the Spartans were such a war-driven society. They were a pure solider culture. If they were less violent, and cared less for war, they probably would have been adsorbed by the greater Athens Greek culture, and then later on, the Romans -- it was exactly their extreme violence that lead to their extermination.

As far as I know, and I'd love to hear anyone who knows better, there has never been a civilization, culture or society that has come to any great prominence on the historical stage by exterminating and being far more violent than diplomatic. Most modern countries of today, i.e Japan, Germany, etc (most) have had their borders defined because powerful, political savvy and reasonable groups gained control of their demesnes -- not because they showed no mercy and devastated the people they conquered.

Are you American? Like for example, in the American civil war, the North did not try to exterminate the South. If they did, the war would probably still be going on today. After the South lost the war, the two sides came to an accord, and decided to live in peace, and for greater good of each side. The North did not impose their will be force, after the war was done; the compelled their will on the people using politics.

Hell, even the Mongol hordes were good at building empires through political means after the smoke from the invasion onslaught had dissipated.

kpiess, you are totally correct. Historically, empires have ruled through diplomacy and negotiation, mainly because they couldn't possible control their entire empire with an iron fist, the logistics were impossible. This has been true for all empires.

But Israel isn't an empire, they are 1 country who has been basically in war with the Arabs since it was created.

We need to really read news with a "fine grain of salt" because we are getting a lot of western-influenced news about gaza and from what I've been reading has a lot of bias.

back to the game... Its interesting that the creators seem neutral on the issue but the game has a pro-Israel slant to it

I definitely don't want to appear like I'm taking sides either way in the Gaza thing. It is rotten from all sides. And I fear they will be fighting for an very long time to come.

I didn't mean to imply you were =) Personally, I don't expect a real end to the fighting until one full generation can grow up without experiencing the horrors that are going on, on both sides. Its too late for the kids that are there now, hopefully their kids won't experience it.

Well, I hope that Israeli-Palestinian conflict will somehow continue even under the new Obama administration. No matter what we argues, the United States will always be in the side of Israeli military actions which are sometimes thought to be cruel or simply brute force. On the other hand, Hamas government will never stop firing rocket launcers into Israeli territory. The conflict can only be resolved by the Palestinians themselves with the help of Fatah.

Furthermore, as political scientist, Kenneth Waltz (1979) argues that the world exists in a state of perpetual international anarchy and the war between the nations is likely to continue in the future (Waltz, 1979: 6). Israel and Palestine conflict is an effect of the anarchic structure of the United States' unilateralism and ever increasing Islamic fundamentalism. Both are obviously contradictory things in Neo-conservative ideology which is projected by the President Bush during his infamous 8 years term in the office. In fact, that's just the way it's always been for every American president regarding participations in global wars, isn't it? Let's wait and see Obama 's liberal response towards Palestine people in the Gaza strip including towards Hamas government.

Good comments THM, but I don't think Obama will be doing all that much. Besides, Israel is acting unilaterally.

Actually the President position has less actual power than many people realize. There is only so much you can do to really change the machinations of government with a different figurehead in office.

Especially when corporations have politicians by the balls, and acting against their interests is likely to get you assassinated.

kspiess, you would do well to read up on history before attempting to educate others.

1) All empires rule through FORCE-PROJECTION. This includes both, military might and diplomacy. Diplomacy, in this case, is mostly threat of capability and is far removed from what, I suspect, you and huntyr mean by it.

2) In case of Romans and Greeks, again, the number one factor was superior military might and willingness to use it. Ironically, Romans were the ones who named the area Palestine, after Philistines enemies of Israelites at the time, in order to prevent future rebellions by Israelites.

3) Your Civil War example is simply atrocious. The war itself was an imposition of North's will on the South by force. At first the war became a drawn out quagmire, each side failing to achieve a decisive victory. This changed only when Lincoln made Grant the commander. Grant put in practice the concept of total war, which included destruction of non-military property and infrastructure. With Sherman's March to the Sea is the most famous application to the concept. It allowed to end the war quickly.

What needs to be taken away from all of history is that decisive victory by one side is necessary for a long-lasting and stable peace. In this case, a decisive victory by Palestinians is out of realm of possibility. Decisive victory by Israel, although possible, is unlikely, as it is not allowed to use its military capabilities. Therefore, the conflict will continue indefinitely, until such time when a decisive victory becomes possible. This need not be extermination, as riiaku so ignorantly suggested. One side merely needs to realize that they lost, with it comes adjustment of expectations, willingness to settle, and elimination of national interests in favor of personal ones (survival).

I prefer to think of us all as one and victory in that sense is merely an invented illusion...............true victory would be overcoming the self.