I know quite well how useless the UN is. But I was referring to Israels double standards when dealing with the UN. However, I would consider excessive violence to be disproportianate. The same way excessive force laws work in a court of law.

The point I keep reminding you of is, why did Nation B attack Nation A in the first place? In this world, instigatory attacks tend to originate from those who have the higher military strengths. Weaker nations tend only to attack in desperation and/or with a just cause. Don't give them that cause, and don't be causal to their desperation, and there will be far less need to physically demonstrate military prowess in a way that causes destruction and loss of lives.

If you believe in God, then you believe that God has created mankind. Typically, this means that man couldn't have done anything if God did not create us. God gave us a mind to distinguish between right and wrong, and so he has instilled us with this ability. Therefore, we are accountable for our actions, right and wrong. If God didn't expect us to be able to do good deeds, then He wouldn't have shown us the way with his commandments, and given us examples of what is right, and what is wrong.

If you believe that God was referring to those Israelis responsible for the atrocities occurring in Palestine, and that it is they whom God is referring to with His promise, then you believe in an unjust God. If that land is the reserved right of those Israelis, and they believed in God's promise and that it was referring to them, then they wouldn't have needed to resort to such disgusting and sinful methods of procuring said land. Again, the weak and pathetic arguments direct from the oblivious psyche of the Israeli Knesset.

With all this anti-Israel talk, I'd just like to make it clear (in case someone took offense) that I am in absolutely no way against Jewish people in general or Judaism. My disagreements are with the actions of the Israeli government as a governing and military body. If they were Christian, or Muslim or athiest or Australian, Arab, Italian, etc., I would hold the same views.

Istari, disproportionate response doesn't rely on a larger standing military than your neighboring states. It relies on using significantly more force than the enemy used in their attack.

Using the Nation A vs B example again, I'll even set the stage, since your so insistent.

Nation A&B are geographical neighbors, sharing a large border region. Both have outposts that traditionally skirmish with each other; however B has lately developed the ambition to dominate the local region (which means A). Both A and B have rough parity in terms of economics and standing military forces.

So Nation B starts upping the frequency of border skirmishes. Most of the time no more than 10-15 men are wounded or killed in each skirmish. Nation A now has a choice. Because B has upped the ante in the skirmishes, and is starting to field more devastating equipment than usual, and has started border skirmishes with increasing frequency, A is aware that B wishes to dominate the surrounding area.

A only wants to be left in relative peace. So here are A's choices, as I see it.

1. Continue the status quo.

2. Take the problem to an international forum.

3. Use disproportionate response.

To me, 1 will lead to an eventually higher number of bodybags going home. Mostly because B will keep going, and keep upping the ante, and A will have to keep responding in kind. Eventually it ends up escalating into a wide-scale conflict.

#2 is equally horrible; the international forum will likely take months to come to a resolution that is mostly likely going to be ineffective.

Which leaves #3. Disproportionate response. Please realize I'm not advocating for A to do a scorched earth march into B, as that would really only make things worse. What I'm advocating is for A to use something suitably impressive and destructive in terms of material and economics, but not human life, to send B the message of "back off".

Ideally such a strike would be precision airstrikes against munition factories, and high-profile military targets. The idea isn't for A to go and kill everything within a certain area in B, but for A to launch deep-territory strikes against militarily valuable, high-profile targets within B's borders.

As an example-within-an-example, a stealth bomber strike against most of B's major military hangars and militarily-usable airfields would be highly effective; it also accomplishes the 2 goals of such a strike, which are:

1. Send a clear message through the use of force.

2. Minimize loss of life while maximizing destructive impact.

Note that objective 2 isn't self-contradictory; destructive impact is measured in enemy aircraft destroyed and fuel/munition supplies destroyed.

By using disproportionate force, A has ensured that B will at the very least drop off with the intensity and high frequency of border skirmishes.

Also note that such a begin-state of affairs isn't uncommon; for much of the Cold War that was the status quo between Russia and China, while since the 1950s/60s that's been the current situation of India&Pakistan.

That example is much better. Though what you are describing is a tactical strike aimed at disabling the military effectiveness of the offending nation for the purpose of causing them to desist in their attacks. I wouldn't even call that disproportianate, because proportion becomes irrelevant given that motivation, and the target is not human life or national infrastructure.

My point is still relevant to that example if you apply it to Nation B. If they don't want to be attacked and want to have a secure and safer country, they should deal more fairly with their neighbour and not instigate for the purpose of expanding territory or exerting influence over their neighbour, or attack for any other cause except for self defense.

If Nation A had an exceedingly superior military as compared to Nation B, without instigation, Nation B would be far less likely to cause any trouble. My main problem with the U.S, is that they have the strongest military in the world, but they continuously cause trouble in many parts of the world through their deceit and corruption, and their support of troublemakers like Israel, who say that they want piece while continuing to build settlements on usurped land, which is the root cause of the war to begin with.

It's like a school bully who is encouraged by their big brother to keep beating on smaller kids and taking their lunch money, and if the kids try to fight back or get help, the big brother comes in to protect the younger bully. Then if the teacher intervenes, the younger bully claims self-defense. These aren't the type of people that a just God would choose for a great entitlement. These are the kind of people that God has told us He will send to Hell.

Except that the Church doesn't replace Israel. God's promises to Israel still stand firm; the geographic location IS the rightful property of Israel.

The "exception clause", as you might call it, is that said Israelis must have their faith in God.

So then, what is Israel, and what is an Israeli?

Currently, Israel denotes a certain section of land mass on this Earth, and an Israeli is typically a person of Jewish descent, as Palestinian Arabs tend to hold to their own nationalism.'

By your definition, to have faith in God means to accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour. Jewish people don't. So does that mean that the Jewish people who currently make up the Israeli population are not in fact those Israelis to whom God made the promise? And if so, who or where are the real Israelis?

Or does it mean that one day they will all convert to Christianity, and then the promise will be made good? Or does it mean something else?

TBH, I'm not going to be able to answer your questions satisfactorily. I suggest looking up one John MacArthur. He's written substantial amounts on similar subjects, and I'd wager he's written/spoken about this as well.

Well, I appreciate your honesty. I will have to find time to do some research on that.

It's not rightfully theirs. It belongs to the palestinians.

You know, I already had this conversation. I've already established that the Palestinians don't belong there, and the land isn't theirs.

In fact, it almost seems your posting this as flamebait. So, please, just read over the conversion I had with Istari in relation to that topic, and then kindly be quiet. If you post anything more about this, I'm going to simply ignore you.