i actually have no idea what point you are making?   i thought your comment innapropriate and im tired of the comparisons between the palestinians and everyone who suffered the atrocites (which extend beyond just the jews) or how gaza is a concentraction camp and all the other bs.   it annoyed me and i showed you actual suffering of the holocaust.   because its not something that should be talked about lightly or just tossed about.  (also some of your alleged facts are wrong, but w/e).   i accepted that you didnt mean to use it in such a way and passed over your comment entirely to let it drop. 

ps.  yes i am better than you and it has nothing at all to do with this.  or anything at all even remotely related.  

pps.  the total fatalities in gaza are still sitting under 20 since the start of this operation  and theyve made a couple hundred strikes and the iron dome has successfully intercepted over a 100 rockets that were heading towards populated areas.

here is the iron dome in action successfully protecting civilians http://youtu.be/8kAyqbKwd1o

ppps.  no one needs to die.  if hamas and their sick brethren in gaza  didnt want to murder all the jews then no one would be dying right now.

I'm not sure why you dug up an act of terrorism from half a century ago by a crazy Israeli group that no longer exists and of which was officialy condemned by the Israely government at the time.

Occam's Razor is defined as the path that requires the least amount of assuming is most likely the correct one.

Saying that a states' foreign policy is simply defined as a logical NOT operation to America is a VERY outlandish assumption, not to mention the assumption that somehow, Islamic immigration somehow infiltrated leftist idealism. Take the following into account:

1. Many states have a foreign policy. It outlays which stance to take in general events that occur within other states and territories throughout the world, in order to reflect that states' values.

2. Support of Israel has been slipping. You seem to support this observation, too. 

3. Palestinian territory is shrinking. The construction of settlements on occupied land further escalates this displacement. Do you disagree with this?

The methods Israel used previously MAY have been more brutal, but that's not stopping the fact that there hasn't been any reclamation of territory of Palestine since the 1967 borders, and every coming day is a new record low of total land area. What you're trying to say is "Well it's a slow rate of occupation, which makes it legitimately fine, compared to the times when larger amounts of land were being grabbed at any one time.

We both agree that Israeli support has become lower since statehood was achieved. the reasons as to WHY this is is the source of conflict. My answer involves either a shift in Israeli policies (such as agressive establishment of settlements on Palestinian territory) conflicting with states' foreign policies, or a slow progression of change in foreign policies by said states (the least likely of the two, since it would be HIGHLY coincidental that all states would change their foreign policies at the exact same time). Your answer is a sudden infiltration of Islamic ideals to Western Europe, which in turn causes said states to become anti-American, without any kind of logic or reasoning behind it.

This is EXACTLY what Occam's Razor is about.

No, not comparable at all, because it conflicts with your logic, right?

What if America is denounced as a state and classified as "British territory under terrorist control"? After all, they didn't achieve independence from the English in a peaceful way, right? By your reasoning, they should have not fought back at all, and in turn that would have made the English somehow concede.

First off.  You clearly didn't read my post, at least not correctly.   Secondly, you didn't read your own post.  I'd suggest going back and rereading them... but to put it succinctly.

There are groups in the UN that specifically vote against everything the US votes for, no matter how petty.  That's not an assumption.  There support never changed really.  It was mostly anti-american because it was the cold war.  Then when the cold war stopped.  Most of those nations were still pretty anti-american.

Secondly, Europe has nothing to do with being anti-american.  That was a completely different point... the shift with Europe was mostly due to demografic changes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/europes-trouble-with-jews.html?pagewanted=all

Is a simple enough primer.

Thirdly, you said their methods were getting more extreme.  Not their land grabbing.  Their methods have been muted as of late.   Espeically muted as they lost support.  

Additionally, when they unilaterally pulled back and shut down a number of settlements.   They were losing support.

So your assumptions on these points are both wrong.   You've made far more assumptions then I have.

I honestly forgot how bad the holocaust actually was, so just compared it to gaza without thinking about it, which was dumb. But i do know it is a very serious topic.

But back to gaza, operations like this have been going on for years literally. For example, in 2008, 1400 palestinians died from an operation just like the one now, even though only 10 israelis died at that time, which is way over done. And this happened many times, but yet the USA, UK etc. just ignore it, even though it's clearly wrong. Even if i was Israeli, I would condemn the government for doing such horrid acts. 

yes, it conflicts with logic.   which is why i stated it was outside the realm of my perception, leaving open space to provide your reasonings.  (im not from the US, if that was the reason for your choice of comparison btw)

well...both the realities of the world and the natures of the entities are different.  gaza and the west back are not unsatisfied colonies of israel.  britain and the US were not neighbours with conflicting claims of territory due to conflicts with other neighbours that resulted in the US never actually existing as a state.  etc etc..  the more i think about trying to make these examples the more my head hurts because they are nothing alike at all.  are you familiar with all or any of these four places you are mentioning ?

i wrote a couple paragraphs here but deleted them because i dont think it matters what i say when you dont even understand how the US and britain are different from israel and the palestinian territories

That's not true.

Terrorism is more often than not deeply connected to ideology.

Look at the IRA, the Basks (that Spanish minority), Breivik in Norway, the islamists currently occupying northern Mali, the Bali bombings, Chechen terrorism in Russia, Kashmir/India terrorism, the 9/11/Madrid/London bombings, American embassy bombings and whatnot all over the world, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, islamic terrorists in Thailand, the Sarin subway attacks in Japan, Al-Shabaab waging Jihad in Somalia, Timothy McVeigh, Taliban massacres of civilians in Afghanistan, the multitide of Shia versus Sunni terrorist attacks in Iraq.

All these are mainly ideologically motivated.

You're making an illogical conclusion based on visible results. It's like looking at a black box, inputting a few tests and then coming to the unreasonable conclusion that it's a logical NOT operator, without any thoughts towards the inner workings of the black box. The results say that said states have always voted against America. Does that mean they will ALWAYS vote against them in all stances, or the fact that the inputs observes happen to coincidentally cause a conflict in opinion? To say the state is a simple logical NOT operator is the same as saying the state is simple.

On the European front, this is the classic retort to any criticism of Israel; just call them anti-Semetic. Ignore the fact that the left consistently denounces all sorts of opression, including the holocaust. Once again, it's the black box fallacy. Anything coming out that doesn't support Israel is anti-Semetic. It doesn't matter about the inner workings that determined the outcome. 

Oh, so you do agree that, as a response to loss of support, their settlement rate has dropped? Don't you think that there is some kind of logic behind that, and not just "well let's see if we get support back by stopping this". There would most likely have been foreign communication as to WHY they have lost support, and acted accordingly. You pretty much just admitted that there was most likely a shift in support against Israel BECAUSE of the settlements.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of how logic and predictability coincide. Allow me to explain. Your assumptions occured at the top level, so in other words, the assumption had to bridge a bigger gap. My assumptions involve plotting known facts, decaying a hop to it's own reasoning and working recursively from there. So in other words, while I may have made a few assumptions to your one, the distance of my total assumption is a lot less, since yours spanned the initial reason to begin with. You already agreed that support was being lost from Israel. You just admitted then that, as of late the rate of occupation has been decreasing, most likely bacause of lost support (you said it, not me). Join the pieces we know, don't just jump over the whole issue with one mere assumption.

cast lead was different than whats been happening with pillar of w/e they are calling it.   ideally they dont even want to go in at all.  they can exert much greater precision and control with air strikes and the like.   with the iron dome in place they might not even need to go in because they can stop so many of the rockets that threaten them.   the most probable way for a civilian(in gaza) to die in this conflict is from seconadary explosions (militants store weapons in residential areas, the israelis use low explosive weapons because they dont need to use stronger ones.  it hits the weapons the weapons blow up thus damaging a great deal more than the missile could ) or from militant rockets and mortars falling short.

israel also wants to avoid a ground offensive because of egypt being controlled by hamas friends in the muslim brotherhood.  one of their initial targets was the head of the hamas military wing.  guy was a terrorist war criminal.  he was even responsible for the brutalisation of fatah in gaza, so i dont imagine abbas is all that upset about it.

this was all set off by an anti tank rocket hitting an israeli jeep on the border injuring three soldiers escalating up to this point.   in 48 hours before the operation over 100 rockets were fired into israel.