Rue

Israelis and Palestinians in peace movements have worked together on grass roots peace projects and as polarized as things seem to be, they are still there-the terrorists and extremists may have the floor at the moment but they are still there too. Without terror, anything I mean anything is possible in terms of what form peace could take or evolve unto. I personally believe it needs to start with basic grass roots projects such as roads, waterways, shared medical facilities, common trading markets-non political activities that both sides have a mutual interest in. I wish I could take every Israeli and Palestinian child alive and bring them to the same homes across the world to live together for awhile so when they return they do not see each other as demons any more. Its been done with many conflicted groups on a small level. I wish I could just do it with them all. The only value I would force on them all is that they have to be Habs fans.

Dub thank you for your well thought out response and honest effort to respond to my point. I have no problem with your comment about nationalism. I appreciate your comments starting with the word anyone... I probably agree with you about your comment on absolutes. I say probably because like you I think we could both think of ethical instances that can become quite confusing but as a general rule I got your point,. I heard your point about being drunk and blinded by nationalism and self-identification with victimhood and would respond by saying yes in some instances it can blind people but in other instances maybe it does not blind people but they appear blind to you because you do not understand what they feel or how they perceive and express their identity.. That said let me deal with the meat and potatoes of your response to me in which you stated: "the reason the jewish MP's words, uri avnery's words, noam chomsky's words, ayaan hirsi ali's words, have so much weight and strength is because they've managed to set themselves free from nationalism and can acknowledge a wrong act no matter who is doing them. so when one of these people which society has categorized and grouped speaks out against unfair treatment of people done by their own group who they're very familiar with, then their words certainly have more weight." While I see the point you are making I will try explain why I think it is defective. You assume Uri Anvery or Noam Chomsky have seperated themselves from nationalism. Actually they have not. They have in fact simply replaced the nationalism they support and I am suprised you missed that point. I would actually have zero problem with your arguement if I saw evidence in the words or writings of Avnery or Chomsky that they were not in fact supporting the nationalism of Palestinians but remained neutral to both it and Jewish nationalism or Zionism. They do not. They take sides. In their arguements they create a double standard and one that envisions national rights for Palestinians but not one for Jews and that is why I challenge them. I also challenge them because if Anvery or Chomsky were not Jews I have no doubt you would not be signalling out their opinions. You do so precisely because you assume because they are Jews who are anti-Zionist this gives special added credibility to them being anti-Zionist however that is not logical. Think about it. There Jewishness doesn't make what they say any more credible and that is precisely the kind of tokenism or sterotyping or defining people based on their perceived religion or ethnicity I am trying to challenge. If it was in reverse look what you do. You make assumptions if a Jew supports the right of Israel to exist they are blind to nationalism. That is illogical. They may be no more blind to nationalism then a Jew who is against the existence of a Jewish state may be blind to their own Jewish identity. That is with due respect an assumption you make that is not based on objective corroborated fact just sterotyped subjective generalization. In addition, while you assume a Jew who believes in the right to universal sufferage is blinded by nationalism I don't see that that double standard being equally applied to Palestinian nationalism or pan-Arab nationalism. Why is it when a Jew wishes universal sufferage he is blinded by nationalism but when a Muslim enjoys this through Sharia law which institutionalizes its religion in the state apperatus you are silent? Do you hold all the countries in the world with ethnic laws of return to this standard as well? With due respect your arguement is I believe an example of tokenism and reverse anti-semitism. It assigns an instant standard of credibility to Jews because they are Jews if they anti-Zionist but when they are pro Zionist you engage in the double standard and assume it automatically makes them blind. May I also say with due respect your assumption Jews are blinded by nationalism if they are Zionist is an illogical stereotype. Not not all fo us Jews who support the existence of the State of Israel are blind to things Israel does that may be problematic. As well may I also say with due respect you may perceive anti-Zionist Jews as not being blind to nationalism but your cultural bias may prevent you from understanding the psychology of what is going on when certain Jews become blinded by their need to erase their own Jewish identity and deny their Jewishness. May I suggest the writings of Chomsky reflect a deeply unstable man has shown in his words he loaths the Jewishness in him and has become blinded by his self-hatred. The words and terms he uses derogate the collective Jewish identity but also very much do the same with his own Jewish identity. You probably can not see that. To be self-loathing is a complex and difficult phenomena to perceive when you are not the identity of the self loather and do not choose to refer to your identity in a derogatory manner that can incite others to hate all Jews or people in the same category as you. What I am saying is not unique to Jews. Gay people can tell you about gay people who deny and hate themselves for being gay, and on and on with other groups whether they be black, etc. Just for your curiousity I know of many Jews who are NOT Zionists and against any nationalism of any kind-but they remain neutral when discussing both Israelis and Palestinians and do not use words that insult all Jews or their own Jewish roots and remain consistent to their principles so do not believe either side's zeal to have a national identity makes any sense. It is a far different and more sensitive and delicately balanced course of dialogue then say with the fiery hateful rhetoric of Chomsky. I hope that explains what I am getting at. If you follow my arguement through its the same one I would make to say please don't stereotype all Muslims based on their religion or perceived ethnicity or do it with blacks, or anyone else. For example you remember the debate over whether we should have Afrocentric schools? I deeply resented it when blacks in favour of Afrocentric schools were assigned extra credibility simply because they were black but those blacks who did not believe in Afrocentric schools were not given the same standard-more to the point in such a discussion or any discussion and call me a dreamer I would love to get to the point where when we debate our religion or ethnicity our skin colour, ethnic status, gender, gender preference is not thrown about to imply things simply because of that status. What I am trying to say is please judge what I have to say about Israel not simply because I am a Jew because I will not do the same in reverse simply because you are not a Jew. I might challenge you as I have but I do not challenge your basic point that my being Jewish can cause me to be emotionally bias in favour of Israel and I must guard against that. That is a fair thing to say. All I am asking you to do, is not go further and make assumptions that I am blinded by nationalism as I do not assume all anti-Zionist Jews are blinded to their own identity. Likewise I criticize people when I feel they stereotype all Muslims or Palestinians. All I am saying is the very reason you assume it makes Jews who are anti-Zionist not blind to nationalism could also could make them blind to their own identity. Would you know the difference? Probably not. I know I struggle with it and Muslims and Palestinians struggle with it and gays struggle with it and all visible minorities or minorities struggle with ti. See how tricky it gets? I hope I gave you a spirited response and I do appreciate your effort and sensitivity in your response and I do want to acknowledge this point, as a Jew yes, my emotional attachment to the existence of Israel tied to my fears of anhiliation are primal. They are prime instincts related to survival. You are right, the emotional content attached to them can make reasoning difficult. For sure. I struggle with it. It is very hard for me to see Israel do things I think might be wrong jut as it is hard for me when Jews say things I think are hateful or extremist. I am not so blind I can not see such things just as I know non Jews are not so blind they can not see through their cultural biases. Can I say I think most of us try our best to see the other side's point of view and be sensitive to one another and it is a challenge for all of us? Also I would say is it possible to be a Zionist and not be blind? I can only speak for myself. I do not agree with the settlement policy Israel has followed through with on the West Bank at all. I do not think Israel is perfect and I believe some of its tactics in response to terrorists may have been counter-productive. In fact in an ideal world I do not believe in any nationalism at all. For me Jewish nationalism is not a choice it is a necessary conequence of dhimmitude and the holocaust and thousands of years of persecution and expulsion that forced Jews to take a final stand if we were to continue existing and continue to exist. Should all people erase all forms of national identity? Good luck. In an ideal sense yes. Its tribalism. All it does is promote intolerance and I suppose in-breeding. But on a practical level it is unfair to single out Jews and no other group when they wish to express their identity through statehood. That is not fair. I personally believe in a two state solution and the disbanding of Jewish settlements in the West Bank but I also do not believe for one second Hamas or Hezbollah or 400 other terrorist cells now operative in the Gaza, West Bank, South Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Morrocco are interested in anything but a Muslim theocracy in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and Jordan and will not stop their terror until they achieve this goal. I just hope moderate Palestinians and Israelis can find one another and find away to put down their terrorist weapons to then make the IDF a moot point. The future would be full of serious legal obstacles but I do not believe it is impossible for both sides to find peace based on mutual recognition and respect.

Further to the above post, for those of you who think Haganah appeared out of nowehere for no reason please understand Jews were being attacked in Palestine as a result of the Mufti of Jerusalem calling on Arabs to attack and kill Jews before he fled to live as a guest of Hitler during WW2. By 1936, Jews in Palestine accounted for 30 percent of the population. After the Mufti of Jeursalem (Husseini) fled to Berlin, he continued to broadcast back to Arabs urging them to kill and riot against Jews inciting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to create a mass Palestinian revolt in 1936. From the early 1920's to the end of WW2 Jews were attacked randomly by Arab religious gangs organized by the Mufti and this brotherhood. Attacks on Jews intensified to the point in 1936 where their homes weree set afire, shops looted and orchards destroyed and so this is how Haganah came about and then Irgun and the Stern Gang. Haganah however unlike Hamas did not randomly target civilians or attack civilians. Even Irgun which engaged in certain questionable actions for the most part directed their attacks against Muslim gangs. The Stern Gang spent most of their hatred targetted at the British. If Hamas were to operate like Haganah did, it would wear a uniform and engage in conventional war. This arguement that Israelis are evil so Hamas can be is the kind of pointless rhetoric that only inflames hatred. The point is as one reader suggested if Palestinians engaged in Ghandi like tactics this would have taken a far different course. Anyone who would suggest engaging in terror is a rational way to bring about independence ignores the very historic fact Israel came about because it fought a conventional war forced upon it when the Arab League would not negotiate with it peacefully. To suggest otherwise is revisionist pap.

For you to suggest Hamas is no different then Hadassah is past the point of absurd. For you to compare what Hamas does to what the Hagganah suggests Hamas is not doing anything today Hagganah did not do. Your attempt to revise history to try rationalize and defend what Hamas is doing as acceptable is to be expected. For anyone who does not know what Hadassah is it was established in 1912 in New York City by the Daughters of Zion, a women's study group. Hadassah helped create the Hebrew University of Jerusalem-Hadassah Medical School, the Henrietta Szold Hadassah-Hebrew University School of Nursing and Hadassah College Jerusalem. In 1967, Hadassah took over management of Young Judaea, a Zionist youth movement, and merged it with Junior Hadassah under the Young Judaea name. At no time have they engaged in terror or supported terrorism and to suggest they have is odious. What it did do for example was to rescue tens of thousands of children from the Holocaust and subsequently becoming involved in rescue of Jewish youth around the world and their integration in Israeli society. Hadassah is a major supporter of The Hadassah Medical Organization (HMO), consisting of two hospital complexes at Ein Kerem and Mount Scopus in Jerusalem which treat both Jewish Israelis, Palestinians and non Jewish Israelis. Haganah was a Jewish paramilitary organization from 1920 to 1948, which later became the core of the Israel Defense Forces. After Arab riots in 1920 and 1921 in Jaffa, the Jewish people were forced to create this organization when the British refused to protect Jews from Arab gang attacks. Haganah's role was to warn the residents of and then defend against attacks by Palestinian Arab gangs. Haganah were nothing more then Jewish farmers who took turns guarding their farms. After the Arab massacres of Jews in 1929, and that is when it began acquiring foreign arms and evolved into an underground army. By 1936 the Haganah numbered 10,000 with another 40,000 reservists. During the 1936-1939 Arab revolts in Palestine, it did serve as a force to protect British interests and counter Arab rebellion. What Higgly is well aware is that the British administration cooperated with it by forming the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Auxiliary Forces and Special Night Squads, which were trained and led by Colonel Orde Wingate. What makes Higgly's comment about Haganah odious as well is that while it is true many Haganah fighters objected to its policy of havlagah (restraint) Higgly is well aware Haganah fighters were only allowed to use force to defend communities BUT WERE NOT ALLOWED to initiate counter attacks against Arab gangs or their communities. This is why an organizations split from Haganah called the Irgun Tsva'i-Leumi (Etsel). Then in 1940, the Irgun found a faction of its group splintering off into Lochamei Herut Yisrael (also known as Lehi or the Stern gang). Irgun thought it was necessary to engage in counter offensive attacks on Arab gangs. Then later Lehi felt it was necessary to engage in attacks against the British even during WW2. To suggest Haganah used suicide bombers against innocent civilians, used children, pregnant women and innocent civilians as shields is utter b.s. Irgun did attack Arab gangs and in certain acts committed attacks that killed innocent civilians on buses. The Stern Gang was a terrorist cell no doubt about it. However the Stern Gang did not represent the vast majority of Israelis nor was it ever elected to office by any Israeli on the contrary it was denounced. As for Irgun, yes Menachem Begin and Yithak Shamir went on to become elected members of Likud and Prime Ministers of Israel and it can be argued some of what they did engage in constituted terror but that does not make what Hamas does acceptable and Menachem Begin and Yithak Shamir are no different then what Yasir Arafat claimed to be or Mr. Abbas now claims to be. To suggest as Higgly did that Haganah had a charter to rid the Middle East of all Muslims and kill Muslims worldwide until this was achieved and send suicide bombers to kill innocent Muslim civilians or deliberately shoot arbitrarily with missiles or for that matter bullets at unarmed civilians is b.s. It is pure fabrication. More to the point anyone who justifies terror by saying the Israelis did it so we can do it for no other reason engages in another defective exercise-two wrongs would not and can not make a right and it is why the IRA disarmed before it sat down to engage in peace dialogue and why Shamir and Begin had to denounce certain beliefs before they could join Likud and become elected in the Knesset. More to the point Neither Shamir nor Begin nor Irgun or Stern Gang as questionable as they all may have been, killed their fellow Jews as Hamas does with its fellow Palestinians it disagrees with. The Stern Gang at their largest never amounted to more then 200 hundred at their peek and during most of their operations would have been around 45. The Stern Gang engaged in a terrorist attack against Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin which reportedly had 120 of its members attack innocent Palestinian civilians and terrorize them. What the Stern Gang did was dispicable and does not rationalize or legitamize what Hamas does or any terrorist does. More to the point nothing Irgun or Lehi did led to Israeli independence, not a damn thing.

Oh I don't know. I think Obama's approval rating would skyrocket if he suggested someone take a certain person outside and shoot them, figuratively speaking of course.

For the exact same reason you only speak out about the above but nothing else either. I challenge your statement for these reasons; 1-you engage in the anti-semitic canard of invoking the memory of the holocaust for political partisan purposes, i.e. of suggesting the alleged offensive behaviour of Israeli settlers can be referred to in a manner which suggests all Jews and Israelis are to be held to a different standard then other human beings because their relatives may have been victims of the holocaust; 2-your comments are deliberately selective- i.e., they are referred to infer they are the only acts of idiocy or hatred in the Middle East, you remain silent of course on what we also know, that intolerance and hostility is shown in the Middle East by Jews against Jews, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against Jews, Muslims against Muslims, Muslims against non Muslims, Jews against non Jews, on and on; 3-your comments necessarily play on emotions to incite people to be angry and resent not just specific Israeli settlers but all Israelis and all Jews; 4-you base your conclusions not on first hand experience but "fim" footage, i.e., footage that may not show the full context of events that happened but like you selected only those incidents or visions the person taking the footage found necessary to promote their political views and biases as to the conflict. Life is far different when you are physically at the site of the alleged conflict and can view its full context. The distance and proximity of where you sit and the medium from which you make your conclusions is necessarily distorted. You are a classic case of someone who forms their opinion, then looks for things you think will then validate it. Its self-fullfilling. You see only that which you want to see. For those of us who have lived in that part of the world and been on the West Bank, in Gaza, in Israel, in Syriam in Jordan, in Egypt, in Lebanon what we have seen are people of many categories engaging in intolerance. That Sir is why I would suggest some of us unlike you do not define the Middle East in simplistic one sided black and white emotional tones. The only colour we remember is the colour of blood and the demon we saw was a human that had no distinct characteristics although I would if pushed say when I saw it at its most ugliest it often was male and had a beard but other then that unlike you I did not find it so easy to define and identify and I doubt very much you would either if you were there on the ground and took the time to see just some of the many shapes it takes. I would also suggest if you saw the above up front with someone shooting at you you would know it did not happen in isolation but as part of a far greater complex chain reaction of violence where all sides to the conflict are suspect. For some of us your attempt to manipulate emotion to incite hatred against Israelis means nothing just as it would mean nothing if you engaged in the same exercise against Palestinians. We feel nothing when people like you try exploit anger and emotion to incite people to "side" with you. You could just as easily burn a cross on a lawn or stand with a pitch fork and burning torch screaming for the death of the demon you think you see like some old black and white Frankenstein movie. You scream out Frankenstein is evil. That is clear. For me he is not the only ugly monster I see.

Dub please let me make clear what I am getting at: You stated: "this MP has lived in israel and is familiar with everything there is to know about the zionist movement since he's been part of and is part of zionist organizations. he also had a family member who was killed by the nazis during the holocaust. he has studied the situation and has written about the situation." All those things explain his direct interest in the issue but do not make them any more valid then those Israelis or Jews like me who have lived in Israel, are familiar with the Zionist movement and also had family memvers killed by the Nazis during the holocaust and have studied the situation and written about it as I and many other Jews and Israelis have. More to the point he doesn't get automatic brownie points for virtue or morality then I would or anyone else with the above characteristics. Your comments imply the above gives him automatic superiority then others because of the above. No they do not. They may explain his EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to certain issues which motivate his beliefs, but nothing else. The validity of what he says like what I say or anyone else says comes from its contents and not who we are. I would suggest Logic, objective reasoning, corroborated indisputable evidence of facts and statements go into making a human's words credible and doing what you do, i.e., tossing their heritage about is not only patronizing and exploitative, but misses the point entirely and that is clear in the way you presumed he has somehow some moral superiority over me or non Jews who disagree with him. You stated: "i would think he's more qualified to speak about the situation than many of us, including you." The above comment reflects the fact that you assumed I do not have the same qualities he has which I do. It also assumes they make him more qualified then someone who does not. Of course they don't. They may make him more emotionally involved but not necessarily more qualified. Let me put it to you in even simpler terms to get my point across, I need not have cancer to treat it. The fact that I have cancer will not make me more qualified to treat it either. You stated: "so in some ways it doesn't matter that he's a jew but it does in the instance above? you need to stay consistent with your beliefs." No its not me being inconsistent, its you. You are assigning him an inconsistent standard of credibility you don't apply to others. That is what is inconsistent. I am the one being consistent and that is precisely why I challenge you because your reasoning stereotypes credibility as being defined by one's religion or heritage. For me it is inconsistent to say its racist to do this, but then on the other hand its o.k. to use this racist standard if you agree with the person's opinions which you do. Please. If this man instead of stating the opinions he does states the exact opposite would you be saying he must be listened to and has credibility and you can't question it? Of course not. You write such people off as "Zionists" and unfair Israelis or in my case Jews with a blind prejudice towards Israel right? In regards to this comment; "there is nothing wrong with criticizing injustice. just because he is a jew, it doesn't mean that he should blind himself with nationalism." what you in fact have stated is; "there is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel...." of course not. But you have also stated; "...just because he is a Jew (its spelled with a capital J and here's a hint, you may wish to use the word "Jewish", Jew is one of those words that we Jewish people question now since it has been too often used in a derogatory context)it doesn't mean he should blind himself with nationalism". The above comment is bullshit. Why does his being Jewish need you to lecture him on nationalism? That assumption that you can lecture Jews on nationalism is based on your stereotype that Jews simply because we are Jews are blind to nationalism. That Sir is a stereotype and why I am challenging it. You are in no position to lecture any Jew as to their vision of nationalism any different then you are to lecture a Muslim or Christian or anyone else. You assume our being Jewish automatically brings with it beliefs as to nationalism and Zionism. That is based on your lack of understanding of how we identify with our collective identity and express it whether it be through universal sufferage like other ethnic groups or simply through culture or religious expression or perhaps art. I do not see you singling out any other race groups for your lecture and that is why I challenged it. You are bringing one's Jewish identity into your discussions criticizing Israeli policies and making assumptions about people as Jews that are quite frankly cliched stereotypes. You are a classic example of someone who first looks to see whether you agree with someone's opinion, then work backwords to justify their opinion using whatever it is you think can be exploited. You would never engage in this same standard to say the same thing about Jews who support Israel which Sir would be the consistent thing to do, on the contrary you have set up a double standard and suggest Jews are automatially credible because they are Jewish when they critique Israel but not automatically credible when they are Jewish if they support Israel. That Sir is as bullshit to me as stereotyping Muslims based on their perceived common political beliefs simply because they are Muslim or doing the same with any other ethnic or religious group.

The fact that this MP is a Jew is absolutely and utterly irrelevant just as his religon would be irrelevant if he was an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Bahaii, Hindu, Buddist. The fact that some of you make it an issue shows you buy into this type casting and this stereotype that if a Jew criticizes Israeli policies, it must be credible because he is a Jew criticizing Israel is as assinine as saying the same about a Muslim who criticizes Hamas or a Christian who criticizes Hamas or Israel. This playing up of this MP's religious to suggest it gives his words added meaning and importance is a classic example of anti-semitism and stereotyping people's opinions based strictly on their religion or perceived ethnicity. It is absolutely irrelevant. If anything for a Jew to accuse other Jews of being Nazis shows he is an an ignorant insensitive ass but that is all.

Stop talking common sense and sounding reasonable. Before you know it, it may spread on this forum.

Your question and then responses to Peter are with due respect problematic. To start with your question provides the answer and so is not a question but in fact a political comment and opinion you express. So when you then repeatedly ask Peter to answer, what you were in fact doing is asking him to agree with you. To determine the application of the international law as to whether self-defence is justified or not one must look at the specific actions being engaged in, who they are targetted at, the political and legal contexts from which they are initiated and implemented, who ordered them, and whether the party engaged in them is a sovereign nation's armed forces following the Geneva Convention as to military conduct or is a terrorist organization acting outside the law. Your repeated questions to Peter want him to ignore all the above considerations and simply agree with you but the law is not applied in the simplistic, rigid, politically partisan way you want it to be and that is precisely why Peter suggested your question is pointless-precisely because you do not want to consider the context that must be examined to be able to answer such a question. The only possible answer to what you asked, is " it depends" . May I suggest international law is not applied in simple rigid black and white yes and no applications. You might see that on t.v. with t.v. lawyers asking questions, but in real life its not how the law is applied or determined.

In regards to the moral issues of using white sulphur weapons I think it obvious none of us wish civilians to be exposed to such weapons. The horrendous slow burns are gut wrenching and dehumanize people to the utmost extent possible without killing them. As such I personally believe these weapons should be permanently outlawed. That said I would arguye Hamas is morally culpable for placing its civilians in harm's way and shooting weapons from close proximity to their civilians forcing the IDF to consider using them. I would also argue a moral argument can be made that the use of these weapons is justified because they may in fact prevent more deaths then those they harm. The problem we can all agree burning people is horrible. But then so are terrorists who use their civilians as cannon fodder to gain world sympathy through exposing them to death and such burnings. So it is my personal opinion that the IDF should not have used these weapons and Hamas is dispicable for placing civilians in the line of fire. I would also state anyone who is trying to exploit this tragedy to engage in partisan mud slinging only compounds the insanity of this issue. Surely the focus of our attention should be on disarming terrorsists and finding ways to create peace.

White phosphorous weapons have been used since the 19th century and have been used in all major wars including the Gulf War, in Iraq, by the Russians in Chechnya, etc. The horrendous thing about these weapons is that we all know if sulphur comes in contact with skin, it will burn down to the bone like acid. I don't think there is any question it was used in Gaza. One of the reasons its used is that it can create ground cover and it can mark an area with tracer flumes. So in close quarters fighting it can enable a conventional soldier on the ground to avoid getting hit by sniper fire and enable them to shoot back more accurately at a position and avoid collateral damage to civilians but yes it also floats in the air and if it comes into contact with civilians it burns them horrendously and if inhaled it causes serious damage to the lungs. There are of course a lot of accusations now being thrown about that Israel has violated international law using such weapons. I will now respond to the legal issue and in my second memo respond to the moral issue. The violations the Israeli Defence Force are now being accused of and were also accused of in Lebanon are as follows: 1-Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977): "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." 2-Article 8(2)((i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998): "..Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities". 3-Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977): "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” Inrterestingly as was the case with Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Hamas in Gaza, those who accuse Israel of the above violations remain totally silent as to the actions of Hamas and before them Hezbollah. I would suggest if a legal determination is made that Israel did violate any of the 3 grounds above, it would not be considered in isolation of the actions of Hamas and in fact it would be legall impossible to find Israel guilty of any of the above unless Hamas was found guilty of the exact same violations. For Israel to defend itself, it is allowed to argue that it was not deliberately targetting civilians but only responding to Hamas who placed the civilians in harms way. It could also be argued as horrendous as the sulphur missiles are, they save more lives then they cause harm to. What most people do not understand is the use of white sulphur in itself is not illegal. Using it or ANY OTHER weapon to deliberately target civilians is illegal. Many posters assume simply using it is illegal. Now in regards to other international legal violations that Hamas appears to have violated but Israel has not I would bring to your attention the following 6: Article 8(2)((xxiii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) "war crimes" defined to include: "Utilizing the presence of a civilian ... to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations". Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land : "…especially forbidden", "To make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention." Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949) "… the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments … ". Article 38 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977): "(1) It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or … of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions …". (2) It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization." Article 77(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977): "The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces…" Article 8(2)((xxvi) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) (ground for war crime): "conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities". In conclusion I think it is important when discussing this issue we understand the law is complex, and those who simply assume they can look at the use of these weapons without context to what Hamas was doing do not understand how the law will be applied and its why while Human Rights Watch or Amnesty can make statements they feel the use of such missiles are an international crime, that has no meaning in law, none whatsoever because Human Rights Watch and Amnesty feel the law should prohibit the use of such weapons under any circumstance but the law does not and so their comments reflect their partisan beliefs and not what the law says. You may have strong beliefs as to what you think of the use of such missiles but your emotions and feelings are not what the law necessarily will follow to determine any findings of illegality. If it can be shown an IDF soldier deliberately fired at a civilian with the sole intent to kill them and for no other reason, then yes that would be an international crime and for that matter a court martial crime within the IDF that would subject the soldier to life imprisonment for murder.

Your comment engages in the following exercises; 1-creates a group "Israeli supporting bloggers"; 2-assigns them all the same negative characteristics and motives; "all they do is spin, lie and distort". May I kindly suggest that: 1-you can't possibly have read nor are you in the position to know what all Israeli supporting bloggers think, feel, have said, are saying and will say; 2-same as 1 but as to being able to know what there motives are. Therefore given 1 and 2, may I also kindly suggest all your comments do and will do is: 1-evidence you are negatively stereotyping people which is bigoted and irrational; 2-because of 1 incite hatred and intolerance; 3-because of 2 will not be productive in soliciting constructive positive debate but will most probably only attract others who may feel inclined to respond accordingly making the dialogue even more pointless. Perhaps you should consider expressing your political opinions rather then assuming to know what the opinions of others are or assuming you are in the position to morally judge others or know what they feel or think. Your comments do not add to developing positive insights to try offer alternatives to hatred, violence, terrorism an wars. Anyone can name call including me but it will get us nowhere very quickly as they continue to do-if you fling poo its bound to cause people to fling the poo back. If poo flinging is what you really want then far be it from me to stop you. Poo fling away!

Using your logic Myata immorality is a sign of strength and therefore virtue and a quality to strive for. That Myata is the crux of any conflict and why terrorism and violence of any kind arise-people like you, using your own logic, are too feeble to conceive of what morality is and how to put it into practice so instead engage in tough sounding words that call for immoral behaviour, i.e., brute force, i.e., the means justifies the end-kill anyone and everyone until you get what you want. There is no doubt in my mind Myata you believe the embracing of immorality is for the strong. There is also no doubt in my mind, your open brace quite unintentionally shows just how weak you are and how lacking in confidence you are that you can use reason and logic over primal brute reaction. Myata some of us wish to remain in our Baboon packs (tribes) and fling shit at other baboons and make growling noises at them, stick our inflammed red butts at them, hurl sticks and stones at them, etc. Some of us though have figured out how to walk upright and shave and want to share our bananas. We got that idea when we ventured forth from our sheltered environments and ran into other life forms and witnessed how they do things and realized not all of them eat each other. Don't worry Myata. I am not suggesting you become a vegetarian. Please keep eating those big Macs. The same thing blocking your heart right now will in time create a crisis forcing you to give up meat. Unfortunately some of us do not change until a crisis is right in front of our face leaving us no other alternative. Nature does have its way of smacking dumb men in the face when we prounce about like baboons. Don't look now Myata but Hamas members do get heart disease, prostate cancer and and strokes if they live long enough and most do because they leave the heavy fighting for the young ones. The IDF might not get them but their own drinking and cigarettes will. You must know that Myata. After all your food friend Gen. Sharon was morbidly obese and it was of course a stroke that took him down not Hezbollah or Hamas. You'd be suprised who has the last say in this Myata. Here's a hint - probably the same thing that when all is said and done preceded and will precede immoral men. In the meantime I will embrace morality and good deeds and finding peaceful ways and trying to cut down on the cholesterol so my head can get smaller.

Your laughter simply evidences your closed mind. Closed minds are what lead to conflicts. The last thing Palestinians or Israelis need is someone laughing at their attempts to find non violent means to achieve peaceful coexistence. Why you have chosen to become a laughing hyena I do not know. But it is bone chillling for me.

Sorry BC Hamas has not. Just not true. In October of 2008 the Interior Minister of Hamas went to Tehran and entered into an open military alliance with Iran which announced it would train 6,500 Hamas soldiers to continue their war to take back Israel. It is one of the key triggering forces of the latest outbreak. With due respect BC Chick I think your are confusing Palestinian people with Hamas. Palestinian people are traumatized and faced with anhiliation and want to be left alone. In my opinion they voted in Hamas not for violence or terror but because they wanted a corupt free government that would not steal the foreign aid money and help them build a country. Hamas violated that trust and moral obligation. The first thing it did was seal the borders with Israel and blow greenhouses, buildings and roads built by Israel and roads leading to Israel. It then told its citizens anyone who spoke out calling for peace with Israel would be considered a collaborator and some did and had tires placed on their necks and then were lit on fire. I think your concept of what Hamas is and thinking it will sit and talk is with due respect based on your distance from them and not understanding who they are and what they think. All you have to do is read their own statements a few which I have listed. May I respectfully point out that when Hamas violently took the Gaza from Fatah , the first words out of is leader, Dr Al-Zahar's mouth in a speech stated that Hamas had "dreams of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it...I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (including Israel). This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land". (source: Khaled Abu Toameh, April 2, 2006, article entitled, "'I dream of a map without Israel', Jerusalem Post also on Hamas' web-site). This is why Hamas will say things like: Hamas “must lay the foundation for a tomorrow without Zionists.” (Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar, Al-Aqsa TV, January 4, 2009) The economic crisis is the result of) “bad administrative and financial management and a bad banking system put into place and controlled by the Jewish lobby.” (The Jewish lobby) “controls the U.S. elections and defines the foreign policy of any new administration in a manner that allows it to retain control of the American government and economy." (Hamas Spokesman Fawzi Barhum, October 7, 2008; as reported by AFP and other news agencies) “...the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: ‘I kill, therefore I am’... Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs].” (Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007) This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our nation was tested by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation... Be certain that America is on its way to utter destruction, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine... Make us victorious over the community of infidels... Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies... Allah, annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them.” (Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, April 20, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007) We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. . . So be assured doctor Ayman, and all those who love Palestine like yourself, that Hamas is still the group you knew when it was founded and it will never abandon its path.” (Hamas statement in response to criticism by Al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri, March 12, 2007) “[Hamas will] never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state that was founded on our land.” (Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader, February 3, 2006, Al-Hayyat al-Jedida) “[Hamas] will not change a single word in its covenant [which is calling for the destruction of Israel].” (Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader, after casting his vote in the Gaza Strip, January 25, 2006, Ha'aretz) So with due respect BC Chick this idea you have that Hamas can be negotiated with isn't realistic and for it to happen, they would first need to put down their weapons. Up until now they have openly stated if they agree to a truce, it is only to re-arm. They said this all the way through the last truce with Israel openly and that is why there was an embargo, weapons continued to be smuggled in from Syria, Egypt and Iran and precisely why in April, June, July, August and then in December of 2008, Hamas openly and blatantly violated the truce and shot missiles into Israel to try break the truce but Israel resisted response based on requests from Mr. Abbas, Turkey, and Egypt and at one point King Abdullah of Jordan. Israel even resisted responding on June 14, 2008 when Hamas openly admitted it tried to kidnap an IDF soldier and sent in a flurry of missiles as deflection to try pull off this manouver and which later led in December of 2008 to another incident only this time, Shin Bet the interior counter-terrorist organization of Israel (its Homeland Security/FBI) had an informant that tipped them off of the kidnap attempt and so the tunnel bringing in the Hamas operatives was blown up with them inside it. The real challenge I would suggest is trying to find Palestinian moderates who will not be abused or killed by Hamas extremists who will sit and talk with Israeli state officials about peace. Any Palestinian seen as negotiating with Israel is automatically seen by Hamas and over 800 other autonomous terror cells in the West Bank and Gaza as a collaborator traitor running the risk of being assassinated. Mr. Abbas does not even have the support of his organization in the West Bank and it looks like he won't be re-elected precisely because of his call for peace talks. I think it is ludicrous to ask anyone to sit across from someone whose charter is to wipe you out and negotiate. What do you negotiate? The weapons to be used to exterminate you-the choice of extermination? It is precisely why the IRA had to disarm and remove from its charter references to taking back Northern Ireland before negotiations could commence. To date Hamas will not do that and I personally do not believe they ever will since it would appear they killed off anyone remotely moderate or forced them into exile. It is probably why you will not see an end to this until some serious alternative to Hamas emerges to speak for the people of Gaza. Telling someone to talk to a deaf man is pointless. Telling someone to talk while another is screaming is pointless. Telling someone to talk to the person that shoots missiles at them is absurd. Finding moderates in Palestine to represent their people is the key to this. Find them and there are sufficient moderates in Israel who could then talk down their right wing factions saying the only alternative is military force. As long as there is no one to talk to in Gaza, Israeli moderates look like idiots trying to suggest they should speak to Hamas when missiles come in everyday. Hamas deliberately shot its missiles in to humiliate moderates Tzipi Levi and Ehud Barak and bolster a right wing back lash to vote in Netanyahu. They did it once before and they thought they could do it again. The targedy is the longer this drags out, the more Palestinian civilians will die being used as shields and the more IDF soldiers will die and in the end the rocket launchers will not stop. Hezbollah proved you can not stop the smuggling in and launching of hand held rockets or highly accurate long distance rockets. Hamas knows that. They believe it is morally acceptable to use their civilians as shields and pawns. The more of them that die the more it will dettract from Hamas and its agenda and raise anger at Israel. At this point Israel does not care anymore what people think. It has sat for years having missiles shot at it and having to listen to people say they should just sit there and do nothing. For Israel this is yet another existential war and being hated by the entire world is just another day in the life of Israelis. It is tragic Palestinians die and are condemned in a world of horror and poverty. They need homes, water, jobs, peace. Disarm the terrorists and anything positive is possible. Keep the arms there, and this continues. Want the IDF shut up? Disarm terrorists and allow moderates to rule not terrorists. Give Palestinians an option to violence from their own leaders and they will be given an option other then the IDF from Israel.

Interesting Japan and Germany have the exact same law of return for "Germans" and "Japanese" as Israel does for Jews and no one questions either nation's right to see itself as the homeland for people who are not Germans or Japanese by being born or resident in their countries, but by ethnic affiliation. I would suggest that is the analogy that has more relevance. Engaging in a debate as to which nation has had the most wingnuts will prove pointless. Look around. There are a lot of them.

There would be no embargo if Hamas did not smuggle weapons in and then fire them at Israel. It was Hamas not Israel that sealed the border and forbid Palestinians from going into Israel to work and threatened to kill anyone who did or who could be considered a "collaborator", i.e., someone who expresses the view that Israel must be taken back in its entirety and until that is done, a war of attrition is to be waged in which all citizens of Gaza are part of it. Gaza citizens voted in Hamas because of the extreme coruption of the PLO and seeing all its aid money funnelled into Swiss bank accounts for Arafat's cronies. It was desperate for an honest corupt free government. Hamas has violated that trust and exploited their desperate need for an honest government for its own political agenda, a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy in all of Israel, Jordan and the West Bank. All you have to do is read its manifestoes. Its made no secret of its agenda and its belief that all Gaza citizens are expendable and each one who dies helps the cause. So while I am glad you are happy a politician in Alberta said Israel must stop the embargo and Hamas shooting its missiles, here's a hint, DUH DUH and more DUH. More to the point it is so inane I am suprised it has got your attention. Its like saying when a tire is flat, it needs to be fixed.

Yes I recognize your arguements are the classic civil liberty ones that have been advanced by te CCLA and yes I confirm all the comments you made above. I am not so sure about your take on Mulroney's political motives, I will leave that for others. Although I am I guess an extreme middle of the road I guess blue liberal red tory kind of Canadian and no fan of Mulroney's I will just say, I will not touch that one because it may not be fair. But then I concede my knowledge is limited many times. That said, the cultural community struggles with this issue as do we all precisely because of the many issues raised before and some of them well summarized by Kimmy earlier. I think on the one hand, all of us know censorship is a slippery slope and once you start it, it is hard to stop from snowballing and growing in scope to censor things it was never originally intended to censor and so could be an extremely dangerous and coercive tool to limit freedom of expression a crucial condition that must exist if a democratic state is to exist. I think we all agree on that no matter what side of the debate we are on. In my case I see censorship as something that should be used sparingly and with great care but for me obviously I feel it should be used to prevent the dissemination of child pornography or sexual pornography that uses humans or is diligatilized to such a degree the human eye can no longer realize its fabricated and not a real human and shows people being tortured or killed for sexual pleasure. I appreciate trying to draw that line when it may be depicted in movies that are not intended to exploit it would be a difficult one but I think ultimately a society has a right to constantly change or decide what its moral values are in terms of tolerance for such things and certainly those kinds of values wing back and forth between total acceptance to total rejection. Its why as flawed as our present system is I think its the best we have and we have to try work with it.

No its even better then you think. According to Sid Ryan, his union will allow Israeli professors to teach in Canada PROVIDED THEY DENOUNCE ISRAEL'S ACTIONS IN GAZA. So in effect he is proposing a loyalty test, a political oath they must first take. I was listening to Sid Ryan on AM Talk Radio in Toronto this morning and it is clear he has lost it. It was embarassing. He kept interupting everyone. He kept stating Israel should negotiate with Hamas which even for him is bizarre considering Hamas has made it clear they will not negotiate with Israel or recognize its right to exist and in any truce offered to them they will not stop firing missiles. I think Sid Ryan is an example of a left over wing of Trostsykites, Marxist-Leninists, and Maoists who were very active in trade unions in the 1960's and still have a rump of supporters in the academic field-they are still to be found in various units of CUPE. I doubt they represent the mainstream CUPE members but they are extremely vocal and well organized. They do not distinguish in their comments between Israel and Jews in many of their comments and for example Mr. Ryan has repeatedly referred to Israel as engaging in genocide and Nazi behaviour a classic example of engaging in comments that attack the memory of all holocaust survivors and demonize all Israelis-he does not discuss Israeli actions in terms of policies but in terms of an entire people behaving in an evil manner, something that is very destructive and incites hatred whether its done to criticize Israel or for that matter the Palestinian people, i.e., referring to Palestinians and Hamas interchangeably. Sid Ryan is an unfortunate example of the wing nuts that surface with very extreme views and it is actually embarassing to hear him speak. He sounds like he is in a manic phase. He speaks in a rapid fire scream. The sad thing about the Sid Ryans of this dialogue is they never speak in specific terms. So for example they will say Israel should or Israel should not, but then when you ask them to give specifics as to what they should do, he changes the subject. If for example you ask him, how does Israel speak to Hamas when Hamas has indicated they will not stop firing missiles? His standard answer is stop apartheid and occupation of Palestine. When you then say to him that Israel is not in Gaza and left he then says they are guilty of an embargo. when you say but the reason for the embargo is because of weapons being smuggled into Gaza he then says Hamas has the right to defend themselves against occupation. When you then state but Israel is not in Gaza he then repeats the same comment about the embargo. What Sid Ryan has not been honest about is the true agenda he supports. He is part of a vocal group that believes Israel should be ended and turned into a non Jewish democratic state. When you then ask him how is that possible when Hamas has made it clear it pursues orthodox Sharia law which would not recognize non Muslims in the state as equals, he won't respond. Sid Ryan is from an old school of thought that believes Israel is a colonial puppet. You can actually find all his platform by reading the 1960's KGB manifestoes which formed the basis for the platform of the groups in Canada and in Europe and the United States when they used to issue their pamphlets and essays. It actually has not changed at all. Its remarkably stagnant and unoriginal. So for some of us we simply see Sid Ryan as a dinosaur but a dangerous one. He is so convinced his views are the only correct ones he would engage in McCarthyism of the worst kind. If nothing else Sid Ryan shows a complete lack of disrespect of the freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and I think any attempt his union would make to try single out certain political views and assure people have them would be an absolute violation of the Canadian Charter not to mention are irrational. I mean imagine if someone took this man's proposal seriously. Then what. Do we really think Sid would use it in the same manner to screen out Hamas extremists, holocaust revisionists, people who support Sudan's actions, etc.? Mr. Ryan's position reeks of hippocracy and selectivity precisely because he has been silent on all human rights issues outside Canada except Israel's actions. More to the point one must ask what the hell is an Ontario union's leader doing? Is it his mandate to incite criticism of Israel foreign policy? How is that the mandate of his union? Its a classic case of an individual who grew bored with his union activities, is unchallenged within his own union and so is free to rave and rant. I doubt he can be reigned in by the federal office of CUPE due to the constitution of CUPE which gives its provincial heads great powers to do what they want. He also has a very loyal cell that keeps him protected and immune from criticism within his own union. I know union memebrs who have called me for legal help claiming they were being harassed at work for refusing to speak out against Israel by Sid Ryan's circle. Its a sad day for freedom of speech when people like Ryan can get so much air play. But in one sense it has a benefit. Hopefully it shows people the dangers of extreme views and how they lead people to become so extreme they scream out demanding selective censureship of only some people but not others. It is the very extreme bias of Sid Ryan that ultimately will expose him as a nut bar. In the meantime we all have to try engage in debate on both sides of any issue and do so in a manner that avoids personal attacks and negative general characteristics on an entire people. in Mr. Ryan's case some are now accusing him of having hidden agendas and motives and of being anti-semitic precisely because his comments now attack all Israelis and all Jews. Interesting Mr. Ryan has been silent on whether this oath of allegiance he wants from Israelis to say they are against Israel's actions in Gaza will apply to Israeli Christians, Israeli Muslims, Israeli Druze, Israeli Bahaiis. More to the point will he then start screening professors from countries other then Israel and make them say the same oath or simply stop with Israelis. Clearly this power Mr. Ryan wants to have to control people's political views is an illustration of his own out of control sense of importance and righteousness. If I did not know better from what I heard this morning on the radio I would swear he is manic depressive and in a manic phase and is off his medication. He speaks in classic hyper disconnected language that distorts values and misidentifies differences as being threatening and in need of control and pattern, classic symptoms of a person in a manic phase.

Sorry I was so late responding Argus. I just read your comments. While I have disagreed with you on some of this discussion in other threads I took the time to read your comments and I see the points you are making and appreciate what you are saying in fact I found them easier to follow then some earlier positions you presented. I understand the civil liberties type arguments you are trying to be consistent in making. I guess the only thing I can say to you and Kimmy is that for me as a lawyer, I am not suprised the law can be quite arbitrary to the point of being absurd precisely because of its inherent weakness which comes from reflecting ever changing moral values. Yes a law should be consistent and logical but if you expect me to tell you with a straight face that the law is logical and consistent, uh sorry not today, I need a few Stellas in me before I could try pull that one off on you. Me personally I just want kids protected from adults and the world less violent for them. I also am one of those old fashioned romantics that prefers Humphrey Bogart movies to chainsaw mutilation ones when it comes to foreplay with women.

No prob. You know I respect you although we often disagree. There is not an ounce of deliberate hatred in you in my humble opinion which is more then I can say about myself. Lol.

I am sorry I took so long to respond Gosthacked. I also responded to BC in other threads on this conflict trying to show her respect for her arguments because I listen to her. I disagree with a lot of what she says but not her idealism and intent to try debate the matter. So now I acknowledge what you say. You know I am a lawyer. So I have to agree with part of your point. The point is this. There are a complex series of layers of competing rights to land that will engage the civilians of Gaza and the West Bank who are referred to as Palestinians as well as Jews on the West Bank and Christians in Gaza and the West Bank as well as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druze who are Israeli citizens and in regards to land within Israel proper. Its a minefield. Its complex, its difficult and in a comprehensive peace settlement compromises will have to be made and competing legal rights which have equal legal veracity will have to be balanced and mediated. I do not for one second suggest settlements on the West Bank by Israelis are legal. I also however would caution you that land claims by Palestinians may not be as black and white as you may believe them to be either. In fact in an overall peace process if a second Palestinian state is to be created, it may directly compete with land rights Arab Israelis are seeking and may have to give up to assure this second state comes about. As well the legal rights of Jews to land and property confiscated by the Arab league leading to 900,000 being expelled, ironically a higher number then actual displaced Palestinians after Israel's creation, such rights will also have to be compromised. When I challnge Kuzad it is because he and I know Hamas believes all of Jordan and Israel as well as he West Bank and Gaza are envisioned in its state with zero rights to Jews or Israelis of the Middle East. I do not appreciate how Hamas plays the word game with the word "occupied" precisely so that people like BC Chick are fooled into thinking they are only referring to Gaza or the West Bank when they are not. However to answer you directly, yes-as part of a comprehensive peace plan, the status quo for Palestinians of course has to be rectified. Living as non citizens in a no man's land is not a solution it only prolongs this insanity. You find a way to contain the Muslim fundamentalist extremist terrorists of Hamas, and I will deal with Benjamin Netanyahu. We can compare bruises on our buttox at a later date.

I really do believe the bluntness of Bush-Chaney or Argus or some others such as you as much as I am uncomfortable with the comments quite frankly are probably far more realistic then what I dream of being possible and should be done. I admit that. But I tense up when I hear such talk. As a strong supporter of Israel and a Zionist I can tell you the vision of the Jewish state and Zionism was not one of killing innocent civilians. It was never part of the vision of Israel and it can never be and I can assure you no matter what some may believe, the vast majority of Israelis and Jews and in particular the IDF do not believe killing everything that moves in Gaza is the solution. If the IDF believed that they would not as they will continue to endanger IDF soldiers and get them killed trying to prevent innocent civilian deaths. If anyone thinks the IDF has soldiers that relish killing civilians I can only tell you I know some of them personally-these are professionals-they were not trained nor do they aspire to hurt civilians. You will not understand what it means to be a soldier forced to engage in a war of attrition against terrorists when civilians are caught in between unless you talk to them when they return and look at the fatigue in their eyes and learn from them whether they be Israelis, Americans, British or our Canadians coming back from Afghanistan. Our war veterans do not return from such wars or any wars relishing the fact they had to kill innocent people. It sticks in their gut and eats away at them for as long as they live just as the other things they saw and you would not think possible such as men raping boys or pregnant women blowing up with bombs. So I say to you gently, I can not think like you do, because I know too many Israeli war veterans, Canadian war veterans and American war veterans and I will not disrespect the price they pay and the horrible things they had to do to fight terror and live with. They didn't do it to wipe out innocent people. They did it so people like you and me can remain innocent and live in freedom. Soldiers go in because politicians fail. Terrorism is a symptom of the failure of humankind to evolve past its primate instincts and use the gift of free choice that supposedly makes us different then all other life forms. So excuse me but I can not speak in such tones. I respect the sacrifice our military makes too much to think like that. I just can't. I can't also in good consciousness challenge the next generation to be peaceful and not take sides but encourage both sides equally to engage in peace if I were to talk like that. For heaven's sake do we not have an obligation to leave something meaningful behind for the next generations?

You know I am on the same wave length with you. I responded on the other thread basically with the same response. No good comes from the misery terrorism triggers off. This damn cycle of tit for tat just what will it take to get the arms out of the hands of terrorists so that the moderates on both sides have a chance to talk? The tragedy of this damn cycle that never ends is precisely the polarization of Palestinians and Israelis. When missiles fly and jets respond and soldiers go door to door looking for repulsive terrorists and unintentinally killing innocent civilians caught in between, no good can come from this. None. For me the greatest challenge is that moderates such as Foreign Minister Tzipi L. of Kadima and Defence Minister Ehud Barak of Labour find themselves forced into more hawkish roles then they would have preferred. I personally believe Hamas thought its renewed missile attack would end up humiliating both and handing Netanyahu the election which is what they wanted-a stubborn, riigid right winger in power to make peace less possible. I make no secret of my bias for a Kadima-Labour coalition. I believe it has the best chance of negotiating a permanent peace solution not Likhud and Netanyahu. What happens now is anyone's guess. If Israel stays on the ground too long, the IDF will necessarily be forced to leave without being able to stop the rockets and this will fuel a right wing back-lash and be good for Netanyahu not to mention turn Hamas into underdogs. Turning a terrorists into the underdog in a struggle will not work. Its precisely what Hamas wants and if Hamas has to kill thousands of innocent Gaza civilians to gain sympathy it will.