IDF vs NATO

[YankeeDog]

Not to derail this thread but did the waffen SS in the field commit any more noteable attrocities? Remembering that allied propaganda would have covered some with "victors" perogative? I'm just curious as to whether they

were responsable for more than a few thousand civilain deaths with intent to kill inoccents on purpose?

There are numerous war atrocities that have been directly attributed to Waffen SS units -- the Malmedy Massacre, the Ochota Massacre... pick the the front and period, and you won't have much difficulty finding them.

Of course, no combatant was completely innocent of war atrocities; you can find individual examples of atrocities committed by virtually every nationality and major formation -- Wehrmacht, American, British, etc. In a conflict involving millions of soldiers, with the stresses of combat, it's probably inevitable that some men succumb to the least instincts of human nature. But there's a big difference between an individual unit going berserk, and a national, institutionalized bias towards racism and genocide.

So even accounting for the "Winners tell the tale" effect, I think it's pretty clear that the Waffen SS deserves a pretty damning treatment in the annals of history. Does this mean that all soldiers in the Waffen SS were war criminals? Not necessarily. But as a whole, I think the Waffen SS deserves the adjective "Evil."

But regardless, I have no problem playing Waffen SS units in a wargame like CM.

Regards,

YD

[panzermartin]

I think there are no excuses for the Whermacht, the Waffen SS and the nazi germany for the crimes they commited. I recently saw Klimov's film "Come and See" set in occupied Belorussia that makes films like SPR look like Marry Popins. However, I think Germans were punished in the end and learned a hard lesson about war..Even my father feels no hatred anymore despite what he went through in the 1941-44 occupation. I think he is responsible for my other sympathy when playing wargames, the russians. While some here think of them as stalinist monsters, for many people like my father they were heroes, the first who defeated the opressors giving a glimpse of hope in that gloomy 1941 winter and those who put an end to the nightmare.

[Vark]

A site that looks at wartime atrocities, in WWII. http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

Puts any IDF atrocity, real or hyped, into perspective.

Yair, have you read "The Iron Wall"? It is sitting on my bookshelf, unread, but "Guests of the Ayatollah" and "The History of the Arab Peoples" are all vying for my limited time.

Final Christmas fantasy, will BFC ever be in the same format as Steel Panthers, in other words a list of TOE's from which designers can populate scenarios. No need for waiting for modules, if you want Arab-Israeli, Cold-War, Iran-Iraq, Sino-Soviet, India-Pakistan, Vietnam, Falklands, Korea, OIF, etc, etc you could just pick the forces design a scenario/campaign and game away. Sigh, one can dream!

[panzermartin]

I think comparing the small IDF with WW2 is apples and oranges. We are talking about vastly different volumes about a world war that cost 60 million lives that spaned in most continents. It's so huge that we cannot grasp the numbers.

[Michael Emrys]

...a world war that cost 60 million lives that spaned in most continents.

The number may be much higher in fact if we factor in all those who died of starvation or malnutrition related disease due to dislocations in the food distribution systems during and immediately after the war.

It's so huge that we cannot grasp the numbers.

Does anybody have numbers on how many years it took for the natural birth rate to make the losses up? Somehow I doubt that it was more than a decade overall, although it was slower in some regions.

Michael

[Yair Iny]

Vark,

no I have not read any of the books you have mentioned. Which "The Iron Wall" is it? Avi Shlaim or Lenni Brenner's? I found two on Google looking for it. Last book I read about anything close to the subject was "Captives in Lebanon" by Ofer Shelah and Yoav Limor. It is an inquisitive look at the decision making and execution of the Lebanon war. When it gets translated into English, I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in what happened.

Ali Baba,

Agree about the differences, but they are far more than just volumes. For all its faults, the state of Israel isn't driven by an ideology that sees other races of people as biologically inferior and thus needing to be exterminated. Many millions of people (not only Jews), were not only "killed" but actually "exterminated" in much the same difference as you hitting a cockroach with your shoe or fumigating the house. The IDF unfortunately support the settlers whose ideology I find abhorrent, but there is a vast underlying difference about the driving force.

Despite the irony I sometimes feel at the name, given the actions, the IDF is still primarily the "Israel DEFENCE Force", I don't think anyone has any illusions about how long Jews would be alive in Israel if the Arabs ever beat the IDF in a real war, like they almost did in 73. Last I remember, about 15% of Israeli citizens are Arabs and there are 3.5 million living Palestinians in the occupied territories.

[Vark]

Yair, sorry this Iron Wall, by Avi Shlaim

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140288704,00.html

I just asked because the synopsis, on the rear cover, seems to take a similar line to some of your arguments about the impact of the IDF on Israel itself. The penalty I guess for having conscription, the militarisation of your society. When I lived in Israel for 8 months I met citizens who had fought in 67, 73 and the 80's, (not to mention the periods in between) that regular exposure to conflict seemed to understandably have a big impact on them, especially Lebanon.

[panzermartin]

The IDF unfortunately support the settlers whose ideology I find abhorrent, but there is a vast underlying difference about the driving force.

The campaign for the extinction of "inferior species" was largerly a propaganda tool that made germans treat jews, slavs and others like subhumans. It wasn't actually the driving force but mainly a huge excuse to make them do what they did. The true driving force was expansion of the german territory, energy sources and removing the economical and political power of the Jews in Europe. They made it simpler by convincing the german people that they are the superior race and all others are parasites. But I don't think Goering for instance really believed that bs. And of course one of the top reasons Hitler rise to power and was inittialy supported by even Jew bankers and others like Krupp was the threat of communism. They were afraid of losing their wealth and power. It was just that Hilter went out of hand, like Saddam, Bin Laden etc etc.

So, despite what the first picture says, in the end, I think its always about power and expansion. There are no Holy wars, only wars for control and power. Its only the rhetoric that changes. Back then it was the Jews, then it was the communists, now its the terrorists, tomorrow it will be the space lobsters of doom or god knows who

[Yair Iny]

Sorry, I'm just going to have to disagree with that and leave it there...

[Lethaface]

I think it is wrong to compare the atrocities of the SS with those of the IDF. There is no point in doing it, in my opinion. It is very delicate and it is very sensitive and above all it is on a whole different scale.

The principles can be compared, but in those the Nazi's or Israel state are not alone. Propaganda, oppression and using military force to secure strategic goals are older then the man Jesus himself (before the year 0, a lot of wars have been fought). That the atrocities committed by the Waffen SS are on a much larger (and gruesome) scale, doesn't mean that the atrocities committed by the IDF are any less bad then they are (I mean they don't get better because of it).

I think that Ali-baba is right; there are no holy wars, only wars for control and power. Those in power might try to disguise these wars as being 'holy', but there is nothing holy in death nor destruction (in my opinion). Religion is among those things abused most often in order to secure ones goals. As is ideology and 'being civilized'.

Also, in my opinion, Yair Iny says it correct:

"Despite the irony I sometimes feel at the name, given the actions, the IDF is still primarily the "Israel DEFENCE Force", I don't think anyone has any illusions about how long Jews would be alive in Israel if the Arabs ever beat the IDF in a real war, like they almost did in 73. Last I remember, about 15% of Israeli citizens are Arabs and there are 3.5 million living Palestinians in the occupied territories."

In my opinion the state of Israel is a mistake for which so many people have lost their lives, and will continue to lose them. (And I don't mean that a country for Jews is wrong, however the way the state Israel was founded was wrong. Given the whole historic pretext, humanity should have known better. The current FUBAR situation was literally bounded to happen.)

Of course now it is too late, Israel is here and so are it's problems. However it can take another hundred years before the (Islamic) Arabs will accept the state of Israel. At the moment the Israeli government is actually making it worse. One day there will be more Arabs then Jews in Israel. Israel better make sure those are positive about their Jewish neighbors, instead of what they are doing now. At the moment the Democratic government of Israel is not behaving any more civilized then the many non-democratic governments in the middle east. I'm not really positive about the current course in the Middle East. War might break out sooner rather then later. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas among others are looking for Israels defeat. The general population in the Middle East could think similar and is not happy with it's current Dictators (Saudi's, Egyptians). I hope for some positive events in 2010, otherwise I feel worried about the things to come in that region.

On topic: I would like to see an IDF module. Although I can understand BF not willing to go into this now. It is still a sensitive subject at the moment, proven by this thread. WWII has mostly lost its sensitivity after 60 years. Why do you think CMSF is not about OIF?

[Lampshade111]

I hate to bring this back on topic, What is this "half-announced"? NATO module I hear talk of? Does that mean there might be more updates in this game's future?

Off topic again, generally I support the Israelis. However recently I encounter a guy rambling on about Mossad being a horribly FUBARed organization run by hardcore leftists who recruit operatives with ideological, political, and religious stances in direct opposition to those of most Israelis. Now I have no clue if this is just the rantings of a madman, but such internal "conflicting prioritizes" must certainly have a negative effect on Israelis handling of their borders and settlements.

[Bolteg]

IMHO NATO will be the last module for CMSF. After all, what's the point in investing additional effort in that game just to give n-options for the Blue side but keeping the Red side practically as it is?

Who stops Battlefront from adding new vehicles and equipment to the Red side? There are still a lot of things they could have added - we made a big list of suggestions, but somehow Battlefront wasn't very interested in it.

If Russians can make Afghan modules, then I'm sure an enterprising Israeli could produce one; though I do understand that the Russian market for a game, where you can save the motherland from humiliating failure

Please do elaborate.

To me, this is much more honorable than the David and Goliath type of conflicts IDF has participated in the recent years. Images that spring to mind are those of boys throwing rocks to super tanks and bulldozers demolishing some poor's family slum house. The bombardment of the Gaza strip is not a far memory.

Except that in IDF's history there were many conflicts where IDF were the David, surrounded and attacked from all sides.

Boys that throw rocks at the big mean bulldozer sure gives a strong message to all who watch any Western media, except they rarely show or tell why exactly that bulldozer demolishes some guy's house. The are some chances mortars were firing/rockets were launched from its backyard.

And the bombardment of Gaza strip - please don't try and portray Palestians as helpless victims.

They all - Israelis and Palestians did ****ty things, no need to bash only one side of a conflict.

Germans had all the world against them, doesnt this count as overhwelming odds?

Not exactly. One can say that - a) there were many nations in the East who where very supportive of them and from '41 Soviet union faced not Germans, but whole united Europe - they fought Germans, Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, volunteers from Norway, Croatia, Slovakia, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, France, Spain, as well as Crimean tatar, Kalmyk, Ukranian and Russian collaborators; Czechoslovakian and French industrial capacity was working for them.

Not exactly whole world against the Germans, as I said.

I myself would really like to have an IDF module - they have very interesting weaponry and vehicles. Or even not a module, but a stand alone game! I, as many guys with whom a spoke, think that it would be a better choice to portray Israeli-Arab conflicts of the past (not modern) instead of picking fictional Syrian-US conflict - wars back then (in 50-70s) were more "balanced", this way BFC could find the right gameplay faster than they did with CMSF (the game became playable in H2H mode after like what? 12 patches?). The gear and weapons in those conflicts were closer to WW2 stuff that CM series and its players were used to, it would be a lot better choice in my opinion.

Also, I can't believe all you guys flamming about how IDF is just evil etc - you guys play as Blue side, don't you? IDF didn't do more evil than US forces did in Iraq or Afghanistan, and yet you have no problems to command those Abrams or Chally tanks? How come?

By the way, I'm far from a zealous IDF supporter - I was even banned once by a mod on one military forum because he thought I was "racist" during one of the discussions about Lebanon and Georgia. Didn't know that Jews were a separate race.

[GSX]

In a few months time I'll be operating SS Tiger tanks

Er, as BF are well behind the drag curve on their own announcements I think you mean about 18 months, as there are no SS units in the Normandy game.

[gibsonm]

I hate to bring this back on topic, What is this "half-announced"? NATO module I hear talk of? Does that mean there might be more updates in this game's future?

Well there is going to be a CM:SF NATO Module which covers amazingly enough some NATO nations coming to support the so far US and UK only drive into Syria.

I would also expect some new Syrian "stuff".

However I'm not at liberty to tell you who the NATO nations are or what the new Syrian "stuff" is.

I'm sure Steve, et al will in due course - keep looking for a sticky at the top of the forum page.

[panzermartin]

Who stops Battlefront from adding new vehicles and equipment to the Red side? There are still a lot of things they could have added - we made a big list of suggestions, but somehow Battlefront wasn't very interested in it.

Please do elaborate.

Except that in IDF's history there were many conflicts where IDF were the David, surrounded and attacked from all sides.

Boys that throw rocks at the big mean bulldozer sure gives a strong message to all who watch any Western media, except they rarely show or tell why exactly that bulldozer demolishes some guy's house. The are some chances mortars were firing/rockets were launched from its backyard.

And the bombardment of Gaza strip - please don't try and portray Palestians as helpless victims.

They all - Israelis and Palestians did ****ty things, no need to bash only one side of a conflict.

Not exactly. One can say that - a) there were many nations in the East who where very supportive of them and from '41 Soviet union faced not Germans, but whole united Europe - they fought Germans, Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, volunteers from Norway, Croatia, Slovakia, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden, France, Spain, as well as Crimean tatar, Kalmyk, Ukranian and Russian collaborators; Czechoslovakian and French industrial capacity was working for them.

Not exactly whole world against the Germans, as I said.

Also, I can't believe all you guys flamming about how IDF is just evil etc - you guys play as Blue side, don't you? IDF didn't do more evil than US forces did in Iraq or Afghanistan, and yet you have no problems to command those Abrams or Chally tanks? How come?

Yes IDF once was outnumbered and weak but it was always the protegee of United states. It's very powerful now and a module would have to do with modern IDF not 1949's. However a 1970's IDF would be interesting I admit. Now, about the bulldozer thing, well I find it strange that one can sympathize with the occupier. Let's not forget basic things about the sides involved.

As for germans, I mostly like playing late scenarios 1944-45 where they are pretty much with the back on the wall and one by one their allies dump them.

PS. I don't like playing Blue much. Reasons explained already.

[Bolteg]

t's very powerful now and a module would have to do with modern IDF not 1949's.

Which is a shame in my opinion - I mean, that there's almost zero chance we could get a module on Israeli-Arab wars.

But even if it had been modern Israeli-Syrian conflict, it would be still very playable - IDF is not stronger than US or British forces, is it?

Merkava vs various (including newer) versions of T-72 and T-90, BMPs vs Achzarits etc. It would be a cool module.

Now, about the bulldozer thing, well I find it strange that one can sympathize with the occupier. Let's not forget basic things about the sides involved.

We shouldn't forget this, I agree. That's why I said that there is no need to paint Palestinians as helpless victims - they have their hands in blood also (blowing night clubs, buses, firing rockets at cities etc).

As for germans, I mostly like playing late scenarios 1944-45 where they are pretty much with the back on the wall and one by one their allies dump them.

Well, sucks to be them, I guess. Having such a vast support and then still blow it.

PS. I don't like playing Blue much. Reasons explained already.

I understand this, my last phrase about Blue forces wasn't directed to you personally, Ali Baba.

[Michael Emrys]

I myself would really like to have an IDF module - they have very interesting weaponry and vehicles. Or even not a module, but a stand alone game! I, as many guys with whom a spoke, think that it would be a better choice to portray Israeli-Arab conflicts of the past (not modern) instead of picking fictional Syrian-US conflict - wars back then (in 50-70s) were more "balanced", this way BFC could find the right gameplay faster than they did with CMSF.... The gear and weapons in those conflicts were closer to WW2 stuff that CM series and its players were used to, it would be a lot better choice in my opinion.

This is a point I've made several times over the last decade. The bottom line: BFC just isn't interested. Period.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Who stops Battlefront from adding new vehicles and equipment to the Red side? There are still a lot of things they could have added - we made a big list of suggestions, but somehow Battlefront wasn't very interested in it.

What is there to be added that is actually or concievably in the Syrian arsenal that is not already covered. I seem to remember a red wish-list thread that included some things on the basis of "It would be nice to have these", "The Russian Federation has these" and even "The Syrian Army sucks. This is how I would do it*"

As a result, BFC, who pride themselves on at least a certain amount of realism, were not interested.

* it wasn't as bad as "This is what I would do with an unlimited pot of money and access to whatever I wanted", but it equally didn't have any supporting evidence or grounding in what the Syrians either have or do.

[Bolteg]

What is there to be added that is actually or concievably in the Syrian arsenal that is not already covered. I seem to remember a red wish-list thread that included some things on the basis of "It would be nice to have these", "The Russian Federation has these" and even "The Syrian Army sucks. This is how I would do it*"

As a result, BFC, who pride themselves on at least a certain amount of realism, were not interested.

* it wasn't as bad as "This is what I would do with an unlimited pot of money and access to whatever I wanted", but it equally didn't have any supporting evidence or grounding in what the Syrians either have or do.

Quoting Alex from the thread about possible innovations for the NATO module:

Also of course I would love to see new units for Syrian army in this lovely game. These could be:

ZiL-131 or Ural-4320 trucks (for infantry without BMP/BTR), also GAZ-66 for airborne forces. It's not only scenery, but also more mobility and ammo repository.

UAZ with roof (“HQ”) for forward observers and HQ units. For example, Brits have a lot of versions of their Landrover in the game.

Static guns:

ZU-23-2 guns.

Also ZU-23-2 mounted on truck for all types of forces (that has it in their arsenal)

Anti-tank guns for territorial defense forces (often not very useful, but sometimes it can be very dangerous)

2А19 (Т-12) "Rapier" 100mm.

S-60 57mm – judging from open sources, Syria has not less than 600 such guns (which is not a small amount).

Also, the Syrians probably aren’t opposed to use these types of weapons, if we look how many of them Syrians have.

And of course, the lovely ZSU-23-4 “Shilka”, which was extensively used in Afghanistan and both wars in Chechnya as infantry support weapon against ground targets.

He made a lot more suggestions regarding TO&E and various issues such as wrong ammo, mortar fire for insurgents etc.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89369

[flamingknives]

It's the same thread I was thinking of. Much of the TO&E seemed to fall under the "I would do this" rather than "Syria does this". Of course the latter is much more compelling.

AIUI, and bearing in mind that I am not party to much of what goes on within BFC, the other issues are as follows:

Trucks and softskins:

A good idea IMHO. The Syrians don't have any kind of convincing logistics when they really ought to, especially given the arrangement of most of the scenarios.

AFAIK, not specifically ruled out by BFC

Static guns:

These are a bit different to what is in the game already, so would take dedicated coding to implement.

Anti-tank guns:

These are alot different to anything in game at the moment. If they are there then someone will complain that they can't be moved. Coding for limbering guns and towing in CM:SF would take a fair amount of time out of Normandy.

BFC have said that they will not put this amount of effort into CM:SF. Future modern CMX2 titles will be able have these in as a result from work done in CM:N

Anti-aircraft guns:

While these are requested for the ground role, if they can't shoot at attacking aircraft then they will raise some protest. Plus the usefulness in the ground role may not be as great as popularly supposed.

[Lethaface]

Bolteg,

In my opinion it is actually very simple. For me the past is not really of any interest anymore. Status quo is that there is one quite well functioning state, Israel. Then there is a semi-state, which suffers from both corruption and being totally cut off, called Gaza.

People in Gaza live extremely poor. Most people in Israel live quite well. If anyone from Gaza wants to go to Israel, he has to face 'things'. People from Israel have no reasons for going to Gaza. Apart from building villages on mostly unoccupied places, in which they are protected by the IDF, which has also build a wall around and in Gaza.

Apart from what is right and what is not, I can see who is in power. The one in power is the only one that can change anything in the course of the conflict. There is plenty to be said in favor of both sides. It just depends what you favor more. (EDIT: And that is where the delicate nature of this subject comes from.) But the only realistic mindset, is the mindset that emphasis the need for Israel to undertakes positive action. They are partly responsible for the current FUBAR and are the only key holder to its solution.

The Palestinians indeed have blood on their hands, but they don't really have anything else to put their hands on, quite literally.

And for me any NATO module is higher on the list then a IDF module. A stand alone 73 game would be very, very nice though!

[Tactical Wargamer]

I think the case he made was a UN outpost clearly marked on the all maps and sent to the IDF. They had a direct hit from a 155mm to a observation post that had been in place for years. Manned with mostly NATO countries and armed. No bad guys firing form it. They took out the whole complex...a major from my town's regiment Argyle and Sutherland Regiment of Canada. Tragic and needless error. It happens though unfortunately.

[Khane]

this Iron Wall, by Avi Shlaim

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780140288704,00.html

I read it several years ago and I remember that it was a very well written book. A month ago I dumped it into the garbage together with dozens of other books about the Middle East conflict that I have once read: books from Israeli revisionist "new historians"(Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev...), from historians more on the center like Howard Sachar and also from more conservative historians like Efraim Karsh.

I have read/studied tons of books about the subject and the truth is that today I do not know much more about really important things than I knew before. What I do know more than before are mainly different descriptions of of the same events and different figures for the same events, only the dates are the same. What I have learned after reading these books is mostly the subjective opinions of different historians about the same facts. Enjoy the read of "The Iron Wall" but don't forget that the "truth" about this conflict (or any other) is not to be found in any book.

[Vark]

Khane, I think your comments are correct but could be applied to any books on any historical period. Any person, I believe, seeking the 'truth' by reading 'history books' are condemning themselves to a hopeless quest, or are suffering from cognitive dissonance about the truths they contain. My bookshelves are groaning under the weight of history books, as I'm sure its the case for many on this board, and I love reading them, but only because they seem to reinforce some basic 'truths' which can be appiled to situations, in a predictive, analytical, way. Equally of importance, is the realisation and constant reinforcement that each historical event can and should be viewed from multiple perspectives, allowing a window to the past, albeit a very dirty, cracked and optically flawed window.

As said before, to Yair, I spent eight months in Israel and talked to literally hundreds of people, both Arabs and Jews and ended up loving and hating the country in equal measure. Sometimes this confusion was on a daily basis, wanting to go home one day, frustrated I did not have longer the next.

RCMP, some interesting comments about the Globe and Mail article, written by MacKenzie about the deaths of the UN observers, in 2006.

http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca/msg03285.html

[Bolteg]

Static guns:

These are a bit different to what is in the game already, so would take dedicated coding to implement.

I'm not a programmer, so I don't know, if it's true, but wouldn't it be something along the lines of already existing static Syrian tanks?

Anti-tank guns:

These are alot different to anything in game at the moment. If they are there then someone will complain that they can't be moved. Coding for limbering guns and towing in CM:SF would take a fair amount of time out of Normandy.

BFC have said that they will not put this amount of effort into CM:SF. Future modern CMX2 titles will be able have these in as a result from work done in CM:N

But again, static and anti-tank guns are the same, actually. They could be used in scenarios or quick battles, to fight from ambushes etc. Feature that would allow player to move them would be nice, but it isn't really necessary.

Anti-aircraft guns:

While these are requested for the ground role, if they can't shoot at attacking aircraft then they will raise some protest.

Insurgents already have technicals with DShK. DShK was widely used in anti-aircraft role, from Great Patriotic war to Afghanistan. They can be used against choppers in real life, but in the game those insurgents just stand there, doing nothing, when Apache comes. How many people protest this issue at the moment?

Plus the usefulness in the ground role may not be as great as popularly supposed.

Imagine a DShK technical, but only without DShK, instead a twin 23mm gun is mounted on it, that has 2000 rounds/min rate of fire and can penetrate 24mm at 500 meters.

Now, imagine Shilka (which can be stipped of its electonics to be used in anti-ground role - that way more ammo can be put inside of it, if I remeber correctly, this was done in Chechnya) - 4 such 23mm guns firing at a squad of Marines who just occupied some mud hut. This thing is lightly armoured, but still is protected from small arms fire. And what's interesting, 400 Shilkas were delivered to Syria.

In CMx1 there was a possibility to use anti-aircraft guns in both ways - to shoot at the incoming planes and to shoot at ground targets. It's a pity it isn't done in such way in CMSF (it isn't done at all, no protection from air danger - they don't have MANPADs in Syria or what?).

Apart from what is right and what is not, I can see who is in power. The one in power is the only one that can change anything in the course of the conflict. There is plenty to be said in favor of both sides. It just depends what you favor more. (EDIT: And that is where the delicate nature of this subject comes from.) But the only realistic mindset, is the mindset that emphasis the need for Israel to undertakes positive action. They are partly responsible for the current FUBAR and are the only key holder to its solution.

It is hard to negotiate with people who don't want to negotiate and only yell about how all your nation should be annihilated.

It takes two to tango.

I really-really hope some day Palestinians will sort their own **** out, by removing hard-liners such as Hamas from the power, and at the same time Israelis will implement soft politic towards them.