I hope you rethink your intentions here and in future posts about this terrible conflict attempt to be more evenly considerate. Remember there are always two sides to every story.
Thank you.
That said, the tone of equivocation you take is a great example of "pretending to be wise": http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/
It's kind of hard to produce anything when your house is demolished by bulldozers and your town's farm is burned.
This sort of thing is how a viable Palestinian state is going to come about, if ever.
Anyway...
Of course there's a high percentage of suicide bombers in Palestine - it's their only option against an oppressive regime. They don't have tanks, they don't have fighter planes and they don't have a navy. It's their last resort. They have nothing else with which to fight.
All of which Israel denies the Palestinians.
I'm not saying one is good/bad/ugly. Just pointing out that it's not just Israel.
In short, you're doing precisely what you just accused the parent commenter of doing, but wrapping it up in pseudo-logic.
>he stated that Israel has taken actions to stifle Palestine. That is an objective fact...
False, saying Israel takes actions to stifle the Palestinians implies the intent is to stifle, when the intent could just as easily be defensive and as minimally stifling as possible. Those are both opinions. endtime merely pointed out what is there for everyone to see: the Palestinian territories dedicated an uncommonly high percentage of their economic output to terrorist activities, regardless of if you think "they had to do it."
In short, the logic is clear, the amount of man hours dedicated to terrorist activities is objective, saying the Israelis intend to stifle the Palestinians is analysis.
Such a strawman ... I never said anything about Israel's intentions.
And frankly, you're being ridiculous. Whatever Israel's intentions are, blockades are stifling, putting fences through people's land is stifling. Are you really prepared to argue otherwise?
Again, it's your prerogative to argue that Israel is justified in their actions, but when you try to make it so that even stating facts is equivalent to attacking Israel, all you're doing is "stifling" debate.
By the way, the net effect of Israel's actions on Palestine's economy is objective as well. The idea that your side's pain is objective and everyone else's is "analysis" is ... unfortunate.
I never argued otherwise. It can be argued that Israel doesn't have a choice, for the reasons of self defense, but to implement security measures which happen to be harmful to the Palestinian economy, effectively absolving Israel of any responsibility of the economic effects and placing it on groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The point is, talbina put the blame on Israel (implicitly), even though that's just typical one-sided analysis that adds nothing to the discussion.
I'm pretty neutral on the conflict as a whole (I'd need to know way more to have a real opinion), but I'm pretty certain I'm against the Israeli blockade of Gaza[1].
It's pretty hard to build stuff when you can't import cement, steel, or glass. And the food restrictions have contributed to malnutrition in Gaza.
They did finally ease the restrictions in June (after 3 years), so I think it's a lot better now. I can't find a list of what's still not allowed.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_t...
FYI: The food restrictions were never of a nature that would cause malnutrition, that is propaganda. If you know even a bit about the issue you know the Israelis have reasons for blockading construction material, so the question is if you are neutral, why you don't believe them.