WDSmart

If you mean killing civilians without regard, yes, I do believe that. They want to punish the citizens of Gaza as much as they can. That's my belief.

btk, No, I'm quoting sources on the Internet, just like you do.

You don't seem that way to me...

Again, I disagree with you. What more can I say?

Israelis are also concerned about global political issues and how they would be seen if they did that.

When I search the Internet, I use whatever source I find that addresses the issues I search for.

They have to be dealt with by the Palestinians, just as the most extreme, militant Zionists have to be dealt with by the Israelis.

btk, This is where we disagree. There are "terrorists" on both sides, if by "terrorist" you mean will do anything to achieve their goal of getting/retaining control of Israel/Palestine.

btk, I mainly watch CNN, but when I search the Internet, I take any source that has information of what I want to know. And, you might consider that I don't expect everything I read on the Internet to be true. I treat it more like sitting down in a bar with a bunch of people and hearing their stories. They might be true and they might not be. I do trust CNN, at least for the most part. They may have some "false news" now and then, but if they do, they usually notify their viewers and retract it as soon as they find out.

I think, as with Hamas, that the extremists and militants in those groups should be eliminated. That doesn't necessarily mean killed, but means their influence needs to be eliminated. However, it sounds like Israelis want to kill all those in Hamas.

So, what media do you watch, listen to, or read? My main source is CNN.

If anyone knows how to search on the Internet, they'd know the figure is about 16,000. Don't you think that's bad enough? What do you think the final total will be before Israel stops? Maybe your 100,000 might actually be achieved. More than 15,900 Palestinians killed in Gaza since Oct. 7 -Palestinian health minister | Reuters

I assume they have not done it because they couldn't. They didn't "give" Gaza to the Palestinians. First of all, it was originally theirs. Secondly, the Palestinians last took control of it through military conflict. See the link below: Gaza: The History That Fuels the Conflict | HISTORY I think Israel and Palestine should try to work all this out peacefully. That would probably be a two-state or one-state solution. However, most of my posts are geared to presenting the Palestinian perspective because most all the other posts here are pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian. I'm just trying to help people understand this is not a black-and-white issue.

There is no such Israeli goal as you claim. Not in some sense of fully agreed upon national thrust. There are parties and voters who are for these things, but that's not quite the same as what you claim. Yes, we do disagree about what the Israeli goal is. I do agree, however, that there are portions of the Israeli citizenry that would be more accommodating than demanding a complete takover. Examples of this are the two-state and even a shared one-state solutions that have been proposed. IMO (and the "O" there stands for "opinion," not verified "fact), even if either of these solutions were agreed to and enacted, that there would be portions on both sides that would not settle for that and their subversive actions would eventually errupt into more violence in the future. I'm sorry to have such negative feelings about all this, but that is what I expect.

I don't expect Israel to accept any settlement, and if they do, stick to it. I expect them to continue on with "their goal," which is the complete ownership of the land which was once called Palestine. I do expect Palestinians will eventually captiulate and handover whatever remains of their country to the Israelis. This will be done not from negotiation, but from exhaustion.

Your word games are getting dafter by the post. My "word games" are not getting "dafter." They have remained the same since my very first post a week or more ago.

I do see "Palestinian rejectionism" as not being beneficial to their cause. However, any form of capitulation would not be beneficial to their cause, either. "Their cause" being to retain control of Palestine for themselves. And, yes, they could negotiate a two-state or one-state solution, but that would not achieve their goal in their cause, which is to retain ownership of Palestine. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to either understand or accept. You don't have to agree with it, you only have to acknowledge that this is what they are trying to do. This is "their cause."

I chose the term "Hebrews" instead of "Jews" because AGAIN, AS I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY, that is because I don't think all Hebrews are Jews, just as all Arabs are not Muslim.

How much of that related to their own doing? Choices they made? Most of it has to do with their choice not to simply give in and allow Hebrews to take over their land (Palestine). But the worst of that does have to do with the choices they made and make as to how to try to prevent that.

I use these different terms to differentiate between these groups of people. Hebrews and Arabs are racial groups. Zionists and Hamas are radical, militant groups. Jews and Muslims are religious groups. Israelis and Palestinians are citizen groups. All of the above contains mixtures of the others. I don't think you can just refer to one and assume it includes all the others.

I generally agree with you, but this is just one side of the story. The other side would describe a people whose land is being rapidly confiscated by another, and they are either being forced out, isolated in ever-descreaing territories, or forced to live as lower-class citizens. I'm not saying all that justifies what was done on 7 Oct, but I do understand their frustration.

Okay, so the IDF is a regular "army" and not a "militia" (a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency). I use the term "Hebrew" the same as I use the term "Arab." That's opposed to "Israeli" and "Palestinian" or "Zionist" and Hamas." I want to differentiate between these groups.

Nick, AGAIN, I said that I added my own remark in [brackets] in my original post. I didn't change any of the other wording. Here's what I wrote in my post: 16 minutes ago, WDSmart said: Here is the definition of "Zionist" in the Oxford Dictionary (the remark in [brackets] are mine): "a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel [but used to be Palestine].

I had to look up "Tsahal." I assume that's the same as what is referred to in English as the "IDF." In the previous post, I just meant to refer to any Hebrew militia over the past 100 years. I don't know the date that the "Tsahal" was formed.

Could you provide a link to your claim ? Nick, it's as I say in the post, from the online Oxford Dictionary. Just type "Zionist definition." Here is a link: zionist definition dictionary - Search (bing.com)