Jonsa

Not even remotely close to enough. You mean a genetically recessive gene carried down through generations of a religious group that frowned on inter-marriage. "French Canadians of southeastern Quebec have a carrier frequency similar to Ashkenazi Jews, but they carry a different mutation. Many Cajuns of southern Louisiana carry the same mutation that is most common in Ashkenazi Jews." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease. Although Canavan disease may occur in any ethnic group, it affects persons of Eastern European Jewish ancestry more frequently. About 1/40 individuals of Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish ancestry are carriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canavan_disease So are only Ashkenazi jews part of this ersatz quasi race of yours? Let's forget about those damn Sephardics and don't get me started on the Ethopians!

Well by design, the desire to kill one terrorist resulted in a scheme to target an apartment building with the aim or objective of the plan to kill everyone in the building to ensure achieving the goal was the bottom line. I'm sure they agonized over the possibility of killing children. they didn't give a shit, all they wanted to do was ice the terrorist asshole. Which they did. Which was the name of the game.

I agree there is no equivalency. However, dropping a bomb on an apartment building in the middle of the night to kill one person is not killing civilians by "accident". It is by intent. the intent is to kill whoever is in the building to ensure that the one guy you want to kill is killed. You know when you drop the bomb you are going to kill innocent people including children, but you don't give a shit. that's why the prime minister called it a "mistake" instead of an "accident".

Matter of descent? You one of those idiots who think that jews are a race? I could give a shit what fucked up nazi thinking might label me. My mother wasn't a jew so by the religion, I am not a jew. Goosestep back under the rock you just climbed out from under.

I see, so it all comes down to a matter of size, not intent. As if you can mitigate the "impression" of blowing up an "apartment building" because it smaller than typical canadian high rise apartment buildings. Nice try. Here's the kids that were killed. You tell me which one isn't a "child". Subhi Mahmoud al-Huti (5), Dunia Rami Matar (5), Muhammad Ra'id Matar (4), Aiman Ra'id Matar (2), Alaa Muhammad Matar (11), Dina Ra'id Matar (<1), Muhammad Mahmoud al-Huti (3) And a 14 year old, but we won't argue about him being a child even if his voice hadn't changed yet. No, people like me don't view zionism as inherently extreme. What I mean by extreme zionist, is someone with your views. That there is no occupation, that arabs should leave, that arab israelis are occupiers, that all arabs are out to kill jews, that arab children aren't innocent, that have a teflon attitude where no shit sticks to Israeli actions. I'll bet you even think Baruch Goldstien was a hero. Moderate zionists are the 60% of Israelis (general public and Israeli settlers) who support "dismantling most of the settlements in the territories as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/659.php And spare us all your idiotic melodramatic vision of a 'moderate' is.

Are you looking for some wit?

I am an Canadian atheist of German/Welsh descent.

An apartment building is an apartment building. Nine Children is Nine Children. Dead is Dead. When confronted with truth you try to weasel. When you demand proof and get it, you ignore it or lamely attempt to justify, never acknowledging you were wrong in the first place.. When challenged you respond with arrogant dismisal or personal accusations. If you can't answer a criticism of Israel you respond with "yeah but the palestinians.." You claim extensive "knowledge and understanding", but it all appears to be pushed thru a filter of extreme zionist bias. Your self righteousness is as unwarranted as it is unattractive.

Another one that when making a comment about Israel immediately moves into "yeah but the palestinians...." Yes, Israeli military expenditures are about $14.5Billion, including the $3 billion US aid or roughly 7% of GDP, Saudi Arabia spends about $40Billion or 8.2% of GDP. Hell the UAE spends $13 billion or 5.9%. That ain't chicken feed, especially when the main supplier to all is the US and all their wonderful gadgets and doodahs. I do agree that the surrounding arab countries have aging inferior equipment and poorly trained soldiers. You say different day, I say different planet. I assume Lebannon taught the IDF a few lessons about the the latest war making innovations.

So now gaza is only "partly occupied". Like Dread Pirate Roberts was only "partly dead". Okay So the Hague and Geneva Conventions are politicized. I think you might mean the interpretation is politicized. Perhaps you should actually learn exactly what the Israeli Supreme Court thinks of International law.

Where you born this way or do you just try hard. I maintained that if the US determined it was in their best interest to have Israel follow international law, then Israel would be in a world of trouble. You dont' respond to the point made, you automatically reply with "yeah but the palestinians....". It is not relevant that the palestinians get aid from the US and a bunch of other countries. I am well aware of the soviet involvement - too bad in 67 you might have taken cairo. I wasn't talking about the palestinians at all. Why would we forget that? Again not germane to my original point. However, It stems from their unique "refugee" status and their non existent national status. Deserved or not, they get it. Arafat was the biggest gonif.

Not for long. They would have been toast in 73. And these days the enemy has billions and billions and billions that they have spend on weapons. A different planet than it was then.

NONSENSE! Those young people come out of the army with training, discipline and skills. That isn't a liability, that is one helluva a national asset! And they are most certainly NOT an economic liability. Or perhaps the size of your military/industrial/security sector has escaped you. Pain and stress are part of a soldier's burden. I am always interested in learning more. Perhaps when you have more energy you can outline some of these other costs I certainly havent' given any consideration too. I was making a point that back in the 1920's to 1948, way back then, the majority of jewish immigrants were from Europe and as such certainly were culturally insensitive to the arabs they found there. The vast majority didn't speak arab. Do you have some kind of mental block where you can't actually understand context? Now, this is the second time you sleazily implied I am an anti-semite. I'll say this once: I am the grandson and son of GERMAN jews. My Grandfather was lucky and got out of Berlin in 1938 and unlucky enough to move to London. Yes, my father's family were enemy aliens living in London during the blitz. The entire rest of my father's family was sent to the camps and NONE (37 souls) came out alive. Two of my cousins in the IDF died in 72. I could go on, but I just don't have the energy. I know some of that pain, so fuck you.

Guess what, I didn't imply it I stated a fact. They dropped a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building to kill one guy, and along the way they managed to kill 14 other people of which 9 WERE CHILDREN!!!! And sure they weren't innocent. You said: And I provided the examples. You implied I was lying. I shall await your apology. Yes there is some important things regarding this conflict that you can learn from me. Shall we start with the arrogant ultra sensitive attitude and progress from there?

What was the spark? Yes of course it was rooted in anti-zionism and extended to anti-semitism. I have repeatedly noted the anti-zionist attitude of the arabs. I just tried to avoid using that term. Perhaps you should re=read some of my posts - what do you think when I say the arabs were pissed that the jews were moving into and claiming their land? Irrelevant to the discussion, although I agree. Of course this is a motivation. As time goes by it no longer is the sole motivation. So what you are saying is that despite the fact that these arabs are Israeli citizens, Israel doesn't treat them as such. That they don't collect taxes, where they don't issue building permits, where they provide limited law and order, where the schools are substandard. These are citizens of your country you are talking about. Seems the victims of millenial prejudice don't mind returning the sentiment when they are in control.

Well then I guess the UN's international law department is simply wrong. Who knew you knew more than they knew. Well, I mentioned Euro jews specifically because they were the predominant kind of jews coming into palestine. If they were from morocco or iraq or iran or lebannon then they would have been a tad more culturally sensitive to the arabs and more than likely spoke arabic and it might have been a slightly different story. As it was, to the arabs the jewish influx were a bunch of land hungry foreigners, Yes, I agree its irrelevant. Seems you see an antisemite around every corner. Oh please. we both know that Jewish acceptance was a political ploy to force the arab's hand. Perhaps you should read a little more history. I don't expect eternal rejection nor do I think that the conflict is irreconcilable. Yes its a small price and I'm not being arrogant in the least. Study history and compare. Over the 53 years of the conflict, you have lost .003% of your population to war and terrorism which is 1 thousand times less than what the whole world lost in WW2 in 5 years. Yes, international opinion is meaningless. However, your arrogant dismissal indicates a level of ignorance of realpolitik. You enjoy the patronage of the only superpower. Should they determine that it is in their best interests (not yours) that International Law must be followed, you'd be basically up shit's creek.

Yes anyone with an ounce of knowledge about armoured warfare knows that open terrain is preferable to urban environments. Save a few gallons to slowly maneoveur down streets or give it gas across open terrain. Hmmmmmm.

I am well aware of the continum of this conflict from its very beginings at the start of the 20th century. Well, prior to 1948 the arabs attacked jews because they viewed the jews as a threat to take over their land. The jews were rather vocal in expressing their zionist aims and the arabs that lived there were kinda pissed. After al nakba the reason for arab terrorism is kind obvious. Since 67, and direct occupation the focus is on the fact that the palestinians are an occupied people. In 1929 it was a dispute over access to the wailing wall as you well know. In 1948 they were protesting the creation of Israel. In 1954 they weren't protesting anything, Israel acted as proxy to France and Britain. In 1967 they were protesting the fact that Israel existed. The terrorists of today are concerned with what is immediately in front of them. After 72 it became clear Egypt wasn't going to start up with Israel again. By 94 when Jordan threw in the towel, it was pretty clear to all palestinians that a united arab army of liberation for all of historic palestine was nothing more than a wet dream. OTOH I won't deny that many of terrorists and all palestinian Islamists seek the destruction of Israel. Say what? You're telling me that Israeli citizens are occupying Israel? Got news for ya, many americans are afraid to go into the ghettos and the police only go in with riot gear. Try visiting detroit some time. Yes, I am aware of the lengths to which Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualities. Its a moral philosophy first articulated by Ben Gurion. in the late 30's. However, imho when they do retaliate it is always with a heavy hand. I don't understand why you seem to feel this a bad thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2148548.stm Israel's Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, has described Monday night's attack on Gaza City which killed 15 people - including nine children - as a mistake. The attack targeted a leading member of the militant group Hamas, Sheikh Salah Shahada, who was among those killed when an F-16 jet dropped a one-tonne guided bomb on the apartment block where he was staying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin Yassin, a quadriplegic who was nearly blind, had used a wheelchair since a sporting accident at the age of 12.[15] He was assassinated when an Israeli helicopter gunship fired a missile at him as he was being wheeled to early morning prayers.[16] His killing, in an attack that claimed the lives of both his bodyguards and nine bystanders, precipitated much criticism of Israel, and many observers suggested that the act would negatively impact the peace process.[16] 200,000 Palestinians attended his funeral procession.[17] I suggest you examine the record a little more closely these are just two high profile incidents. there are many many more. Yes, knowledge is one thing and understanding is another. I don't disagree with that.

Um if they are a tax exempt non profit, they aren't using other people's tax dollars are they? they are using voluntary donors money.

Don't believe that version of him not wanting a shooting war. Syria was also cranked up. I also don't think that being able to launch attacks from the territories were the reason they were important. IMHO they were more important used as political tokens and symbols and propaganda fodder. Given the terrain, there was no real strategic benefit for launching from gaza, other than being a couple of miles closer to the border which would have been more than offset by the urban environment.

I'm not sure why it matters that egypt and jordan moved more troops into both areas prior to the Israelis pre-emptively attacking. Everyone knows that Nasser was going to attack and that Israel inexplicably surprised him by attacking first. It sure does help when your enemy are bumbling incompetents.

Actually your are wrong. Egypt never annexed gaza and placed it under military rule in 1948. they also attempted to establish a palestinian government there. Cario attempted to leverage gaza in its political power struggle with damascus, as pan=arabism was taking shape. Jordan announced annexation of the west bank, but this was only formally recognized by the UK and Pakistan. that annexation was later announced as temporary until a settlement was reached. the arab league was vehemently opposed to this move. Interestingly, Jerusalem was declared the second capital of the hashemite kingdom and the inhabitants of the WB were allowed to vote some 15 members of the jordanian parliament. Fast forward to 94 when the peace treaty was signed, how come Jordan didn't demand the wb be returned? Politics In 1950, the arab league, and generally the rest of the world including ISRAEL considered the west bank to be part of a future independent arab state as per the partition plan. Unless you read history books differently. I realize that the partition plan was rejected by the arabs but even Israel believed that eventually a palestinian state would be established along the armistice lines, subject to negotiation, which due to arab intransigence and political machinations never happened.

this is not just a tactic of hamas. It has been used effectively by the PLO, IJ, PFLP and the alphabet of terrorist thug gangs that dominate palestinian neighborhoods. They use kids as lookouts and shields. This is well documented. It a bonus if some children get killed in an attack - propaganda points and further enraging the citizens. The other aspect of this they call anyone under the age of 17 a child. Seems there's been 30 some odd successful suicide bombings by "children" with another 15 or so thwarted and dozens of shooting incidents. Nobody ever screams about palestinians breaking international law wrt child soldiers tho.

First, I am not making a mistake. I am rather well versed in the history of this conflict. I mean precisely "Israel generally doesn't shoot first". Yes, the terrorists will not stop as long as they consider themselves occupied, because its the only avenue of violence available to them. IIRC Haganah and Irgun didn't give up terrorism until 48 and the end of British occupation. While I could say that you wouldn't give up either if the arabs occupied israel, but I am fully cognizant that you probably wouldn'tbe alive in that case. Firstly, Israel responds with a very heavy hand. I don't know how you can deny this, if you know so much. Why you think this is a bad thing, I'll never know. I am quite aware of the history of this conflict. I was around when that scumbag Arafat crawled out from under the rock and formed the PLO in 64. I have not nor will I ever deny that Israel has the right to self defence. You are just a tad hypersensitive. There is medication for that. Israel engages in "Disproportionate response" like dropping a 500lb bomb on an apartment building to kill one scumbag terrorist or firing a few missiles at a crowd to kill that other scumbag Yassin. There are countless examples where to get to the target, israel endangered and/or killed civilians. I don't denounce this as I agree Israel has a right to self defence and this doctrine is part of it. I am also aware of the telebots calling ahead of strikes and all the other things that Israel does to mitigate civilian casualties. I believe there is no better example of that than operation cast lead. A remarkably small number of cilivian casualities for an urban shooting war. the government doesn't have your aversion to the label "disproportionate response". http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/world/africa/01iht-mideast.3.19845135.html Unlike you,I don't see this conflict in black and white. I don't paint all arabs with the same brush, nor all israelis. Neither side is innocent in this conflict. This idiocy of not recognizing Israel's right to exist is so much arrogant wishful bullshit, flying in the face of reality. REsolution of the conflict means an end to the occupation and that requires a partner that Israel can trust. Unfortunately, the palstinians haven't yet demonstrated that they can get their own house in order to be that partner. Until that day, terror attacks and retaliation will continue.

Disgusting, facist, inhuman, scumbag, nazis transfered populations to the east. Except they never arrived. You need to improve your reading comprehension. Self evident It was also holy Jews centuries before Christians. Doyou have some kind of relevant point?