Actually no I said that Germany and Japan aren't allowed a military over a certain size, I said nothing of us occupying their land.
Sorry if I mistook that part. When talking about Israel, it's usually more outstanding to me that the Israelis have settled/occupied and then military continually, periodically patrolled and/or reoccupied the remaining Palestinian-assigned areas. So I saw occupying forces as the one to compare. There isn't much of a formal Palestinian military to limit, though. And attempting to disband virtually all of the paramilitary forces, always a difficult endeavor it seems in the Mideast, isn't likely to be accepted after the history of occupation. It's far worse than the "gun rights lobby" drifting into militia radicalism or arms at political events in the US -- themselves surprisingly intractable factors in American politics. There is actually a recent history of conflict in the Mideast to make people skeptical, to make them hang onto their weapons and militant organizations tighter.
I don't believe that Japan is internationally, formally required to limit its military, at least in the present. That is usually a domestic choice made with reference to % of GDP and a slippery claim to avoid more "offensive" forces. There was I think a US-Japan agreement on a numbers cap somewhere between 1945 and the Korean War. I can't say about Germany... Except for noting a limit on forces in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, part of a formula generally credited with setting up yet another war. Were you maybe trying to suggest a bilateral agreement on force cap for 2009 in Palestine? Either way, the whole reasoning of comparable situations and even comparable justification really seems a tortured stretch to me. Let alone getting general support in the present context.
is it then okay to fire at someone as long as you don't hit them?
I'm simply saying I can understand some people firing, when they are being regularly and forcefully denied all sorts of value, opportunities, and honor in life. When they feel their land has been stolen and their people basically imprisoned in substandard conditions. No quantity of high-level formalities alone - especially with the Israelis constantly stretching settlement further and further despite
the treaties - is going to change that. People will make suicide attacks on people who they feel have unjustly rendered their lives meaningless. It may be the only thing they feel they can do, you may go on painting it as barbaric or ineffective if you prefer. But they will keep doing it because it is one of so few available options that makes a difference to them.
Tell you what, fire on any country's boat at sea, miss it and keep firing and missing. If they don't blow you out of the water with the big guns I would be very shocked.
I think you don't understand the distinction people can make between conventional war (of uniforms and formal borders) and total war (of whole peoples, guerrillas and ways of life). I think for some Palestinians, this is more like total war. Will you say the tanks should shoot back at every child who throws a stone too? After all, they dared to take on something bigger than them too. Are they all merely brainwashed by the barbarians? I think something more socially endemic and more profound is going on there.
Never before has another country's lack of ability been a free pass to do what they want.
Umm, does this mean that the fact the Jews had been persecuted across Europe and finally dragged into the Holocaust had nothing to do with why people accepted the formation of Israel as a state?
Instead they have in the last three years fired thousands of rockets
This really isn't surprising. If you're going to fight, you use what you can get. More rockets = either more psychological effect or occasionally, a few meaningful hits out of the bunch (leaving "meaningful" itself open to point of view). The Soviets in WW2 and in planning versus technically superior NATO would employ mass wave attacks; the Vietcong would use the jungle and attack by surprise. And in the end, with your elegant emphasis on might makes right (since you apparently think we should be satisfied simply to notice who gets blown away), you would have to note they all were recognized as having a certain strength -- they all frightened their opposition substantially and/or finally won something.
What's more interesting about Israel is, their politics have taken such a hard turn that it sounds like their leadership, if not many of their people, are not really frightened. They seem able to absorb the rockets endlessly without changing their fundamental approach. They claim the only alternative would be to fold the entire state, but I find that rather difficult to believe. When you have a military with that much reputation and the backing of the US, do they really believe serious, balanced coexistence would allow others to overrun them at an acceptable cost?