Apple has removed most of the towns and villages in Lebanon from Apple maps?

They're people. And this is not about religion it's about rights and land.

> turning into Jewish a minority

Again, why the focus on ethnicity and/or race here? Equal rights for all people without regard to religion or ethnicity. (Otherwise it's racism)

> It will need to happen by force.

Some kind of force, yes.

> not likely to happen

Doesn't make it morally wrong.

> west is very heavily invested in Israel

disgusting.

> strong self reliance

Pretty sure Israel can't survive in its current state without being propped up by the West.

> Sanction it for something and it will likely make its own or get it from a different actor, this is what happens in the first 30 years of its existence (US would not sell it arms back then).

We should still sanction them.

> "Islamist"

Stop saying this, it's racist and again diverts from the fact that the conflict is about peoples rights and land, not religion.

> How about, then, a different alternative where Israel is recognized as a done deal, just like the US is? In both cases someone suffered from their creation but no one is calling to dismantle the US and no one is giving Indians their home.

Yeah, that's fucked up. The US is fucked up. But, I think it will probably happen this way. The Palestinians who were originally on the land will be ethnically cleansed and/or put on reservations, let out to work in Isreal for cheap, and the Israelis will be free to party in the Gaza Riviera atop the bones of hundreds of thousands of buried Palestinian skulls.

> That won’t happen though because the Palestinians are weaponized against Israel by Islamists

It's. Not. About. Religion.

And yeah, if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say. Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this. When Israel kills 1 child or more per every active combatant... then that was apparently violated.

Maybe explain how does killing 20 000+ children and counting help Israel? Or how burning/blowing up entire villages and cities in Lebanon and Gaza help them? They did this to hundreds of villages in 1947-48 and that created the whole problem they have now. Continuing the same strategy is supposed to solve it? Seems like Israel got inspired by the whole Nazi style "preventive security" thing.

Heinrich Himmler: "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror... we do not ask for their love; only for their fear." (looks like Himmler could have coauthored Dahiya doctrine and would be fond of it, if still alive by then)

You're also not supposed to initiate aggressive wars against your neighbors either, like Israel did against Syria, Iran, and many others in the past with its "pre-emptive" strikes.

If Israel wants to be better, maybe they should not intentionally murder 10s of thousands of children as a policy (20-300 allowed killed civilians per strike in a population where half of it is children).

> if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say

You're not making an argument here. Again, do you think the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, considering the 1:100 or so ratio there? How about when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, with an "infinitely bad" casualty ratio of 1:0? Does that make NATO infinitely evil?

> Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this.

The principle of proportionality has nothing to do with how many of their own civilians the military in question has lost.