No, actually, the fact that you really believe such an inane comparison is, as they say on the Internet, "all sorts of LOL."

Very basic reason: the Nazis attacked an unarmed, unassuming group for no particular reason other than hatred and feelings of supremacy (scapegoating, essentially). Hamas has actually fired thousands of rockets into Israeli territory, and has made its bacon off repeated threats to Israel and Israelis, attacks on civilians via suicide bombings, and . . . oh yeah . . . its stated purpose is the annihilation of the nation of Israel. So there's that. It's kind of a key difference, especially since the threats are quite credible.

Or are you going to deny that there are rocket bunkers in Gaza, that a significant number of suicide attacks have come from Gaza and Hamas, etc.? If so, just save the typing, as you've lost all credibility with me.

1. Because it was not their land. Because it belonged to other people.
2. The people who have had their land stolen and been pushed into Gaza.
3. Israel is currently trying to exterminate Arabs.
4. WTF? How are these ratios meaningless? I would think recognizing the fact that this "war" is totally one sided and that the majority of people who are being killed are civilians is extremely meaningful.
5. I hardly think that recognizing that Israeli forces are killing more civilians than militants and that it is wrong is being whiny. The ratio also shows that this is not 100% Hamas' fault and it is not a tit for tat killing spree. It is an Israeli killing spree.
6. This statement can be made for both sides. Palestine has a right to defend its people. You cannot negotiate with someone who wants to destroy you. Hamas did in some ways try to keep an agreement with Israel. Israel has chosen to commit unacceptable acts. It is not possible to have peace when you block trade, steal land, and prevent the military from protecting its people. It failed after WWI and it failed with Israel and Palestine.
7. This would make sense if it were true, but it is not. If there are 900 dead and 500 of them are civilians then how is it that the majority are Palestinian fighters? Even American news reports are claiming that half the deaths are civilians (which means that truthfully more than half are). So I dont know what majority you're talking about. At best its 50/50.
8. You're right that there is no comparison. Israel is killing so many more civilians. Leaflets? Seriously? I havent heard of Israel dropping leaflets saying get out of town because we're bombing tomorrow at 3pm. As far as I know there were leaflets that asked civilians to turn in Hamas ops. And droping leaflets makes no sense when there is NO WHERE for the people to go! The UN is saying that Isreal has made it impossible for people to get to safety and/or get help.
9. There is no way Israel could aviod bombing Mosques, schools, UN buildings that the had the EXACT coordinates of? Really?
10. I honestly think that the only reason you can say that is because you are not in Gaza. These people are witnessing innocent family and friends being murdered by Israelis. If I was in Gaza I can say that once the people who are killing my people start bombing schools all bets are off. Why would you beat a Hamas op. when Israeli soldiers are the ones who are killing your people and stealing your land?
11. By any standards this is a horrible situation. Not shocking at all. Just because more heinous acts have occurred and continue to occur does not make this situation any less shocking and horrifying. For the most part no one life is greater than another.

So, you commit a suicide bombing and the American government has the right to kill your family? Thats reasonable?
A civil forfeiture would only make sense if it were in the US. A CF claim could not be made on land in Iraq. It is not US land. Israel would have no property rights because it is a different country! They have NO property rights at all.
The idea that most people are raising their kids to be murderers is total crap.
You keep saying that Israel has a right to defend itself. Isreal is not currently defending itself. Israel is attacking Gaza. Two different things.

I mean . . . we can play the "spin game" all day, but isn't Israel defending itself from . . . thousands of rockets lobbed into Israel all willy-nilly?

You're reaching here sport.

1. & 2. You can only make that statement if you ignore what has happened in the area over the last 60 or so years. The Palestinians voluntarily left thinking that the Israelis were going to be annihilated. As you may recall, the only actual attempt in that area to exterminate a race of people was a pretty dismal failure, and the rest is history. Theft and conquest ain't the same thing. Otherwise, you'd owe your house and land back to some Native American tribe.

3. Again, if Israel wanted to do that, why have they not simply firebombed Gaza?

4. So if Israel let more of its soldiers be killed in this action, you'd be okay with it? Just so long as the ratios are somewhat similar, right?

5. The ratio doesn't have squat to do with who is at fault here. Israel is there for one reason and one reason only. To stop Hamas from shooting rockets into Israel. Hamas could have ceased doing this (as they agreed to) and Israel wouldn't be there right now, ergo, 100% Hamas' fault.

6. In what ways has Hamas ever kept any agreement with Israel? Their stated goal is extermination, not reconciliation. They are the only party involved here which has such a goal. As for 'blocking trade,' when that trade primarily consists of weapons to be used against the Israeli people, blocking trade is pretty reasonable. Prior to Hamas' jackassery, the people of Palestine had shelter, food, water, electricity, etc. Now they don't.

7. The only numbers we have are from Palestinian and U.N. officials -- hardly neutral observers.

8. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5371775.story

9. Bombing those places likely occurred because they were being used to shelter Hamas leadership and contraband. Hiding such things in Mosques is a pretty tired tactic at this point, unfortunately, it's also very popular.

10. Because without the Hamas folks, Israel wouldn't have been forced to do what it's doing now.

11. This is neither shocking nor horrifying. This is self-defense. Darfur is not. Find something legitimate to express horror about.

Did you miss the post about the bombing of the U.N.? They were responsible for the majority of humanitarian aid in Gaza, but now Israel has succeeded in rendering them unable to help the citizens of Gaza. I KNOW - it must be that all those refugees were known terrorists! And anyone in Gaza must SOMEHOW be related to, or know, a militant, and thus deserve to die - be it by military means, starvation, lack of access to medical care, whatever it takes. They are justified in their inhumanity, simply because they are Israel.

The fact that the IRC, the EU and the UN are condemning Israel should mean something.

And if you want reports from others than the UN and Palestinians, let the reporters in . Unless they have something to hide . . .

eta - there has to be a negotiated truce that can hold. But both sides will have to concede on some issues, and I don't see that happening. Hope I'm wrong. Hamas will have to cede Israel the right to exist, and Israel will have to allow Gaza their autonomy and control of their borders.

You nor I even know for a fact that it was Israel who attacked the U.N., nor do we have knowledge of why Israel might have done this if they did it [Hamas could have been using it for a weapons dump].

The media isn't there because Israel doesn't want to get negative media attention for accidentally blowing up a few journalists. They're in a lose-lose situation there.

There is no dispute as to the bombing itself. Anonymous Israel sources are saying they did it in response to actions by those in the U.N. compound - but the official word is yet to come. But - Israel is not disputing the bombing occurred.

The fact that you will not concede even this point, but have to immediately come up with a scenario in which Israel is blameless speaks volumes.

FWIW, I don't think either side is blameless.

War journalists, by definition, take the risk of being killed as part of the job. Did Israel kick journalists out of its country? No. If they are in danger in Gaza, because Israel is responding to rocket attacks which are continuing, aren't they also in danger in Israel?

Indisputable fact: Israel would not be currently invading Gaza if Hamas had stopped firing rockets and otherwise targeting Israeli citizens.

That's not a fact - that's an excuse. Israel could have chose to invade because of any number of reasons. That is the one they are using this time.

Given that you've already said neither you nor I can know as a fact something which is not disputed by any source I can find other than you, I think your use of the word "fact" is suspect. But it's a nice attempt at trying to turn the conversation away from some awkward logical points.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

That does nothing to allay the indisputable fact that Israel would not be currently invading Gaza if Hamas had stopped firing rockets and otherwise targeting Israeli citizens.

You don't think that's a fact? You think that Israel would currently be invading regardless of whether rockets were fired? What reason would they have had to do that?

How has the U.S. typically responded to acts on its people? Protip: Not proportionally.

Fact: Hamas has been firing rockets at the town of Sderot, Israel, for a long time now, about once a month (sometimes 2-3 times a week).

Fact: Israel has attacked Gaza several times in response to these rockets. They have also attacked for other reasons.

I think these are the only indisputable facts in all of this. Minus fact #3.

Fact #3: This whole thing is a big mess, full of finger pointing and blaming.

I don't think either side is 100% responsible for what's going on. The whole thing, however, is sad, because so many innocents (on both sides) have paid for it with their lives.

Yes, and our reaction to 9/11 resulted in our being in the quagmire of Iraq. Not only was it not proportional, we later learned that it wasn't even solely directed at the source of the 9/11 attack. You can make a case for our involvement in Afghanistan, but Iraq? Oh, that's right, they have weapons of mass destruction. That at one time was supposedly a "fact". So I don't think we were right, and I don't think Israel is either. You may not agree with me, but you cannot accuse me of not being consistent.

And yes, I believe that if Israel decided to attack Gaza they would do so, rockets or no. I think that Israel's actions demonstrate that they do not support a two-state solution. That would also explain the attack on Gaza, and in fact many of Israel's actions.

This is a gross oversimplification, and is probably plainly wrong.

Here's a hint: the offer you propose from Israel been on the table in the past. It was turned down.