What other way should Israel respond?

[JB Globe]

Do you think for a moment I would care!?

Actually I think you do, a little bit. You seem to be one of the posters here who actually enjoy "owning" people more than they do engaging in a discussion, hence the consistent personal attacks.

Well, now you have one less person to play your immature games with.

[JB Globe]

There's nothing naive in assuming since no lasting compromise between Jews and Arabs has occurred in decades if not centuries that no lasting compromise is about to occur.

Peace treaties with Egypt & Jordan - why don't you consider those lasting compromises?

The only compromises that have been "successful" have been those "forcefully" imposed by the US.

Such as?

[tango]

Please tell us how the nation of Israel should have responded to the rocket attacks from Gaza.Explosive laden rockets,inaccurate,fired in the general direction of Israel with a greater than even chance of hitting civilians.Repeatedly,with no advance warning given by the way.And keep in mind,many of the launching sites are within densely populated civilian areas,often among women and children.

For all those opposed to a limited military response(Israel's current action),what other options are better?Perhaps a chorus of zombies chanting the Lennon "peace" song within earshot of the Hamas leadership?

How the hell would you respond?And remember,there would be no Israeli military action in Gaza now if Hamas didn't START this mess by lobbing rockets!

Bullshit.

There would be no rockets if Israel was not imprisoning Palestinians in Gaza, starving them to death.

A cease fire MUST include an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Interestingly, the ONLY Canadian politician to take this principled stand is an Alberta Tory, supported by the Western Standard.

A voice of reason on Gaza

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...on-on-gaza.html

The rest of our politicians, left and right, are silenced by their complicity with the war-for-oil corporate goons.

I'll bet Storseth is 'silenced' by Harpoo now too, but at least he did speak up!

[jbg]

Do you want me to put you on my ignore list?

Stop being immature.

I'm sure Argus would be very badly upset about that. JB Globe is definitely one of the pre-eminent thinkers on this board.

Edited January 8, 2009 by jbg

[KeyStone]

Please tell us how the nation of Israel should have responded to the rocket attacks from Gaza.Explosive laden rockets,inaccurate,fired in the general direction of Israel with a greater than even chance of hitting civilians.Repeatedly,with no advance warning given by the way.And keep in mind,many of the launching sites are within densely populated civilian areas,often among women and children.

For all those opposed to a limited military response(Israel's current action),what other options are better?Perhaps a chorus of zombies chanting the Lennon "peace" song within earshot of the Hamas leadership?

Well, punishing an entire country for the actions of a few rogue militants, is not a measured response.

This sort of response is only going to create more militants that despise Israel.

Tell me. If you were a peaceful Palestinian orchard worker, and Israeli rockets killed your three children, do you think you would think to yourself: Well, it's really our fault for firing those rockets - or would you hate Israel for the rest of your life?

Furthermore, Israel has done everything possible to deny basic human rights to the Palestinians. They even (through the US) denied the UN a visit to Palestine to assess the conditions. They give them no voice. Many of them live on under $2 in dire poverty while Israeli settlers come in and take the choice lands. What exactly do you expect the Palestinians to do?

If you do not give people a way to effect change peacefully, you ultimately give them no choice but to try to effect change violently.

And before you say that Israel would do that if they stop the rocket attacks, you need to realize that there is not one person in Palestine with the power to stop the rocket attacks. There are rogue elements operating independently. You can not abandon the peace process because some of the radicals don't want to abide by the terms. You need to develop a peace process that accounts for setbacks.

The current method is only going to be creating more anti-Israel zealots.

How the hell would you respond?And remember,there would be no Israeli military action in Gaza now if Hamas didn't START this mess by lobbing rockets!

Well, perhaps the rockets wouldn't have been fired if Israel didn't launch a strike to kill 5 Hamas militants in November.

Regardless of who started what, the response is disproportionate.

Certainly an interesting interpretation of what 'ceasefire' means.

[WIP]

Well, punishing an entire country for the actions of a few rogue militants, is not a measured response.

This sort of response is only going to create more militants that despise Israel.

Not that I have any answers, but how exactly is Israel, or any country for that matter, supposed to respond to having crude missiles fired at their cities, and suicide bombing attacks, whenever they can get past security? Certainly the bombing attacks haven't been very successful -- they've killed a handful of civilians and destroyed some homes, but if they had better missiles, they would not hesitate to kill a lot more people, and they make no distinction between civilian and combatants -- all are fair game, even the children....if you can remember back a few years when the suicide bombings were running rampant!

And for myself, the willingness to plumb any depths of depravity to wage war just turns me right off and makes it impossible to take their grievances seriously! Before the first Intifada began, the Palestinians had a higher per capita income than most of the Arab World, except for a few of the emirates that are floating on oil; now they are the poorest, no doubt because the economic loss from closed borders with Israel and the resulting loss of jobs. But who's fault is this?

There has never been an acceptance of a State of Israel, or prior to 1947 - the migration of Jews to the territory. It has been a state of continual war for almost a hundred years. Before there can be any real peace treaty, there has to be a basic acceptance of each side's right to exist. No peace treaty with any Palestinian groups will last, unless they are willing to accept the State of Israel. Until then, each treaty or ceasefire only means 'we'll stop shooting until sometime in the future, when we think we are strong enough, and then we will come in and kill you.'

[KeyStone]

Not that I have any answers, but how exactly is Israel, or any country for that matter, supposed to respond to having crude missiles fired at their cities, and suicide bombing attacks, whenever they can get past security? Certainly the bombing attacks haven't been very successful -- they've killed a handful of civilians and destroyed some homes, but if they had better missiles, they would not hesitate to kill a lot more people, and they make no distinction between civilian and combatants -- all are fair game, even the children....if you can remember back a few years when the suicide bombings were running rampant!

And for myself, the willingness to plumb any depths of depravity to wage war just turns me right off and makes it impossible to take their grievances seriously! Before the first Intifada began, the Palestinians had a higher per capita income than most of the Arab World, except for a few of the emirates that are floating on oil; now they are the poorest, no doubt because the economic loss from closed borders with Israel and the resulting loss of jobs. But who's fault is this?

There has never been an acceptance of a State of Israel, or prior to 1947 - the migration of Jews to the territory. It has been a state of continual war for almost a hundred years. Before there can be any real peace treaty, there has to be a basic acceptance of each side's right to exist. No peace treaty with any Palestinian groups will last, unless they are willing to accept the State of Israel. Until then, each treaty or ceasefire only means 'we'll stop shooting until sometime in the future, when we think we are strong enough, and then we will come in and kill you.'

Well, it's a legitimate question. Israel always claims that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, but the mounting death toll of children would suggest otherwise. In fact, it would seem that they are intentionally visiting collective punishment on them.

Alternatives include:

1) Working through the UN

2) Asking other countries to help them by limiting/increasing aid based on their behaviour.

3) Setting up negotiations with the Palestinians, to actually give them a way to change things.

4) Setting up a peace process that can deal with occasional rocket attacks, by recognizing that will all the children they have killed there in the past ten years, there will always be some small percentage of Palestinians who hate Israel.

5) Working with Fatah, and supporting them financially and militarily to stop the flow of weapons etc into Palestine.

Now, let me ask you, if you are a Palestinian, how should you respond to:

Israel killing 6 Hamas members during the ceasefire?

Israeli settlers taking the best land in Palestine, despite the massive poverty and overcrowding in Gaza?

Israel denying Palestine any method of affecting change - including having a voice at the UN?

[WIP]

Well, it's a legitimate question. Israel always claims that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties, but the mounting death toll of children would suggest otherwise. In fact, it would seem that they are intentionally visiting collective punishment on them.

Alternatives include:

1) Working through the UN

The U.N. doesn't seem to be a whole lot of help in any active conflicts, and in this one (as in Lebanon) they don't seem to notice Hamas missile sites that are right under their noses, so I have to ask: would they even try to investigate and monitor the missile launchers?

2) Asking other countries to help them by limiting/increasing aid based on their behaviour.

In the long term that might work, but a likely cause of Hamas's decision to start a war this time could be the weakening of support among the population of Gaza, and their fear that Fatah would regain power. The upcoming Israeli election is being blamed for Israel's forceful response; afterall, sporadic Hamas missiles are launched at nearby cities like Ashkelon all of the time.

3) Setting up negotiations with the Palestinians, to actually give them a way to change things.

I guess a few specifics are needed on that one.

4) Setting up a peace process that can deal with occasional rocket attacks, by recognizing that will all the children they have killed there in the past ten years, there will always be some small percentage of Palestinians who hate Israel.

Are we dealing with unruly children here? I am getting nauseated by the condescending patronizing attitude of the majority of Palestinian apologists here: oh let em launch a few rockets, they're angry....well, this temper tantrum destroys property, occasionally kills and maims victims, and worse, it forces Israelis living in border towns to live in a constant state of anxiety, as air raid sirens go off at any time of the day and night.

And "all of the children they have killed" have died largely because of a clear Geneva Convention violation that gets very little attention -- the use of civilians as human shields. When you build rockets and store them, and even launch them near in densely populated areas, deliberately located near mosques, schools and hospitals, you have yourself to blame for your civilian casualties. But the evidence shows that Hamas wants to encourage civilian casualties, not lower them, since this type of asymmetrical warfare awards Hamas propaganda victories in 3 of the 4 casualty scenarios:

1. Israeli civilians die -- Hamas wins

2. Israeli soldiers die -- Hamas wins

3. Palestinian civilians die -- Hamas wins

4. Hamas fighters die -- Hamas loses -- and that's the only casualty scenario where they don't win. That's why they embed themselves among women and children, and that's why they are so quick to start their low grade wars -- almost every scenario, except for the extremely difficult one of killing them without killing civilians, is the only one that works against their strategy of waging low grade war.

5) Working with Fatah, and supporting them financially and militarily to stop the flow of weapons etc into Palestine.

Sounds great, if Fatah has enough incentive to actually stop the flow of arms.

Now, let me ask you, if you are a Palestinian, how should you respond to:

Israel killing 6 Hamas members during the ceasefire?

Israeli settlers taking the best land in Palestine, despite the massive poverty and overcrowding in Gaza?

Israel denying Palestine any method of affecting change - including having a voice at the UN?

You start with non-violent means of protest, and if you feel the need to take up arms, you limit guerrilla attacks to military and government officials, and avoid harming civilians -- you simply do not brainwash supporters that their misery will end, and they will receive a heavenly reward by strapping on a bomb-belt (loaded with nails and shrapnel, to cause as many injuries as possible, along with the killings) and walk into a crowded Israeli restaurant or nightclub. If you approve of, or excuse such actions, your level of depravity negates whatever legitimate grievances you have.

If we put this scenario in a Canadian context, I live 12 miles or 18 kilometers from Caledonia, and I know several people who bought homes in the area being claimed by the Iroquois, and have had their lives made miserable because of the roadblocks and the decline in property values in the homes they purchased. And even though the Iroquois land claims along the Grand River may be weak on a legal basis, the aggravations of Six Nations protesters don't include any where close to level of violence that you are expecting Israelis to put up with.

Again, I have to ask if you and other apologists, who are trying to see this conflict from the Palestinian perspective, are putting any moral obligations on them, or are you just going to excuse any and every outrage committed as the lashing out by oppressed people?

[KeyStone]

The U.N. doesn't seem to be a whole lot of help in any active conflicts, and in this one (as in Lebanon) they don't seem to notice Hamas missile sites that are right under their noses, so I have to ask: would they even try to investigate and monitor the missile launchers?

I don't think that anyone is disputing the existence of the missile launchers. The question is what to do about it and how to deal with it. There are ways to work within the international community. This is not Mahmoud Abbas doing it. It's not Joe Palestinian - it's Hamas radicals. Israel is creating enemies out of potential allies right now. They have just handed the next election over to Hamas.

In the long term that might work, but a likely cause of Hamas's decision to start a war this time could be the weakening of support among the population of Gaza, and their fear that Fatah would regain power. The upcoming Israeli election is being blamed for Israel's forceful response; afterall, sporadic Hamas missiles are launched at nearby cities like Ashkelon all of the time.

I guess a few specifics are needed on that one.

Hamas didn't start a war. They fired some missiles. Israel started a war.

If you want to suggest that Hamas is responsible because they fired missiles, then you have to accept that Hamas fired missles because Israel killed 6 Hamas members during a ceasefire - and so on.

Are we dealing with unruly children here? I am getting nauseated by the condescending patronizing attitude of the majority of Palestinian apologists here: oh let em launch a few rockets, they're angry....well, this temper tantrum destroys property, occasionally kills and maims victims, and worse, it forces Israelis living in border towns to live in a constant state of anxiety, as air raid sirens go off at any time of the day and night.

No one is saying Israel needs to get used to rocket attacks, but as long as there are people that hate Israel they will happen and Israel is in the process of creating even more people to hate them. Do you think that Palestinians should get used to assasinations by drones? Do you think Palestinians should get used to the settlers taking the best lands in Gaza?

And "all of the children they have killed" have died largely because of a clear Geneva Convention violation that gets very little attention -- the use of civilians as human shields. When you build rockets and store them, and even launch them near in densely populated areas, deliberately located near mosques, schools and hospitals, you have yourself to blame for your civilian casualties. But the evidence shows that Hamas wants to encourage civilian casualties, not lower them, since this type of asymmetrical warfare awards Hamas propaganda victories in 3 of the 4 casualty scenarios:

Well, I see that you are on the sayanim distribution list. Excellent job of cutting and pasting by the way.

This 'human shield' nonsense is preposterous. First of all, Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Secondly, what do you expect them to do. Should they set up a separate area in Palestine where only terrorists live so that Israel can decimate them? Shall they march in a nice little line, with bright red uniforms out to a field where Israel can kill them with their 50 billion dollar war planes without risking civilians?

The concept is just absurd. The Vietnamese did the same thing against the US because the US has superior military power.

The Palestinians do not have the planes, or the assault weapons to have a straight fight.

If you want to meet them without weapons, and fight with bare hands, I am sure that they would be more than willing to accommodate.

They aren't using human shields. They aren't holding babies in front of them. They are attempting to hide after they attack Israel.

1. Israeli civilians die -- Hamas wins

2. Israeli soldiers die -- Hamas wins

3. Palestinian civilians die -- Hamas wins

I see. So I guess by the same token Israel wins when Israeli civilians die? Or does that logic only apply to evil Palestinians.

Because as we both know, Israel has killed about ten times as many civilians and children as the Arab world combined has killed Israelis.

You start with non-violent means of protest,

Which didn't do jack-shit.

and if you feel the need to take up arms, you limit guerrilla attacks to military and government officials, and avoid harming civilians

I see. So if they limit their attacks to the military then Israel won't kill civilians?

Let's see if we can remember what happened when Lebanon targeted some IDF soldiers.

Hmm, guess that doesn't really make a difference does it?

Perhaps you would prefer it if they only targets they are allowed to attack are Israeli drone planes?

-- you simply do not brainwash supporters that their misery will end, and they will receive a heavenly reward by strapping on a bomb-belt (loaded with nails and shrapnel, to cause as many injuries as possible, along with the killings) and walk into a crowded Israeli restaurant or nightclub. If you approve of, or excuse such actions, your level of depravity negates whatever legitimate grievances you have.

The problem is that nothing else the Palestinians have done has ever made a difference. Israelis don't listen to anything else.

Those that excuse what Israel is doing right now, are no better than terrorists that blow up nightclubs.

Anyone who intentionally kills children, (even if you get the occasional 'terrorist' along with them) is a terrorist.

It seems that you have no problems excusing the Israelis killing children in great number.

The Palestinians do not have the military to do much else. If they march in shiny new uniforms to attack Israeli soldiers, the IDF brings in the fighters and bombs the shit out of them. Great strategy.

So, it would seem that your attempt to frame what is a fair form of combat essentially dictates a form of combat in which Israel can obliterate all of the Hamas fighters with their superior technology. Tell me if I am wrong. Please tell me how you think Hamas should attack Israeli military such that it would have an impact.

As for the religious beliefs, that is certainly one part of it, but we don't see Palestinians doing that in Canada, do we? Jews are, for the most part undisturbed. You see, when you treat a people so poorly, that they have nothing left to lose, then be prepared for the consequences. If living conditions in Palestine improved such that people could feed their family, have hope, live a decent life, and have something to look forward to, I think you would see the number of suicide bombers decline significantly.

If we put this scenario in a Canadian context, I live 12 miles or 18 kilometers from Caledonia, and I know several people who bought homes in the area being claimed by the Iroquois, and have had their lives made miserable because of the roadblocks and the decline in property values in the homes they purchased. And even though the Iroquois land claims along the Grand River may be weak on a legal basis, the aggravations of Six Nations protesters don't include any where close to level of violence that you are expecting Israelis to put up with.

Sure, and the living conditions of First nations is nowhere near as deplorable as how the Palestinians live (most on less than $2 a day), although Israel and the US try to block any UN efforts to actually conduct a study of exactly how bad it is.

For comparison basis, let's say that a few of the most disgruntled natives launched a couple of rockets at a nearby city and injure a girl.

Do you think it would be appropriate for the Canadian government to go into the reserve, and kill hundreds of people in the pursuit of those that launched the rocket? Do you think that is something that a civilized country would do?

Again, I have to ask if you and other apologists, who are trying to see this conflict from the Palestinian perspective, are putting any moral obligations on them, or are you just going to excuse any and every outrage committed as the lashing out by oppressed people?

Launching rockets at civilians is wrong. Killing hundreds of civilians in response, is wrong, and it is worse (as judged by the death toll).

But we can not justify one based on the other. Moreover,

[DogOnPorch]

[WIP]Good post. Agreement.

Do you think Palestinians should get used to the settlers taking the best lands in Gaza?

Settlers in Gaza?

---------------------------

I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say: September 11th we are all Americans - in grief, as in defiance.

---Benjamin Netanyahu

[betsy]

Peace treaties with Egypt & Jordan - why don't you consider those lasting compromises?

Such as?

Without the US, how long do you think these treaties will last? Furthermore, let's put these so-called compromises in perspective. A couple of years....or a couple of decades...whenever the terms no longer suit one party....when there's no more economic incentive... how long is long? The only thing sure is that they will end.

[betsy]

If peace was truly desired,

I think you're onto something here, Jerry. If peace was truly desired, we'd have peace.

[tango]

The United Nations has accused Israel of evacuating scores of Palestinians into a house in the suburbs of Gaza City, only to shell the property 24 hours later, killing some 30 people.

In a report published today on what it called "one of the gravest incidents" of the 14-day conflict, the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) complained that the Israeli Defence Force then prevented medical teams from entering the area to evacuate the wounded, including young children.

The Israeli military said it was investigating the claim but had no knowledge of the incident.

"Come in here children ... to a safe place."

KABOOM!

"Teehee ... suckers!"

Israel has lost its mind, its heart, its humanity.

May they burn in hell. :angry:

[Argus]

Bullshit.

There would be no rockets if Israel was not imprisoning Palestinians in Gaza, starving them to death.

Imprisoning people in their own "country"? Starving to death? I haven't seen any information that Palestinians are starving to death. Did your toaster tell you this?

A cease fire MUST include an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Most of the movement impediments the Palestinians face are as a result of their attacks on Israelis. Maybe if the Palestinian people hadn't elected a terrorist group as their representatives - thus indicating, as if there was any doubt, their wholehearted support for suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, the movement impediments might have been lower.

[Argus]

Well, punishing an entire country for the actions of a few rogue militants, is not a measured response

A few rogue militants? You mean the Gaza government, Hamas? I don't think they can be described as either few or rogue, given they were elected into power by the Palestinian people.

This sort of response is only going to create more militants that despise Israel

.

Everyone there already despises Israel. I think the Israelis can live with that, so long as people aren't firing rockets across their borders.

Tell me. If you were a peaceful Palestinian orchard worker, and Israeli rockets killed your three children, do you think you would think to yourself: Well, it's really our fault for firing those rockets - or would you hate Israel for the rest of your life?

If I was a Palestinian I would probably be certifiably insane, by our standards anyway, and hate Israelis so much that if one of my children died blowing himself up in an Israeli pizza hut I would celebrate and hold parties for all my neighbours at what a tremendous thing my child had done.

So I don't really care what your theoretical orchard worker says or thinks.

Fatah members have told the media that they know very well that Hamas deliberately fires rockets from civilian areas, including schools, in order to have the Israelis kill civilians so Hamas can then bring in the international media to point at their corpses and show what evil people the Jews are.

Furthermore, Israel has done everything possible to deny basic human rights to the Palestinians.

Compared to where? It seems to me the Palestinian people have no problem throwing stones at Israeli troops, for example. Try doing that in Syria! Or in North Korea, for that matter, or China. See how long you live.

[bush_cheney2004]

Imprisoning people in their own "country"? Starving to death? I haven't seen any information that Palestinians are starving to death. Did your toaster tell you this?

Agreed...it's the same old propaganda. Subsaharan Africans are really starving, but they don't have any Jew baiting political games to garner press coverage. We heard this same crap about Iraq because of UN sanctions....50,000 were dying per month...right.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Agreed...it's the same old propaganda. Subsaharan Africans are really starving, but they don't have any Jew baiting political games to garner press coverage. We heard this same crap about Iraq because of UN sanctions....50,000 were dying per month...right.

I must agree.

[eyeball]

Again, I have to ask if you and other apologists, who are trying to see this conflict from the Palestinian perspective, are putting any moral obligations on them, or are you just going to excuse any and every outrage committed as the lashing out by oppressed people?

I'm certainly not going to apologize for anyone that launches or detonates anything that harms a fellow human being. I'm quite certain the experience of feeling oppressed and terrified is something that Israelies and Palestinians are both horrified with. Why is it so outragous however if the moral obligations of people that do these things to each other are pointed out in proportion to the death and destruction they result in?

Things sound like they're going to get a lot worse over there and we can probably expect the polarization in the rest of the world to get a lot worse too. I think the people who need to feel the pressure of moral obligation the most in this world are outsiders who seem to think that one side is somehow more justified in its actions than the other. I don't think there is any excuse for not trying to see this conflict from both sides or better yet from neither. In fact I think anyone who does choose one side over another has a lot to apologize for. Given how much death and destruction is being sustained by outsiders picking sides this willful ignorance is more abominable and amoral than anything the poor people in that part of the world are doing to each other.

If you're expecting any excuses or apologies from me for saying so you can forget it, and so can anyone who picks the other side.

Edited January 10, 2009 by eyeball

[KeyStone]

If I were to follow that argument, I would say influence

As a whole, the US gets nothing.

As individual political parties, they get the financial support of the diaspora, which in the US is considerable.

[KeyStone]

Imprisoning people in their own "country"? Starving to death? I haven't seen any information that Palestinians are starving to death. Did your toaster tell you this?

Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia. While I know they are not perfect, at least they are a source that strives to be unbiased.

1 While Gaza used to be a Palestinian economic center, this changed significantly during the second Intifada when vast plots of Gazan citrus groves were bulldozed by the Israeli military.

2 part of Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement plan stipulated that Gazans will no longer be able to work in Israel

3 According to OXFAM, Gazan industry has been reduced to shambles because of the ongoing economic "closure" imposed by Israel

4 eventy-five percent (75%) of the population (1.1 million people) are now dependent on handouts from the World Food Programme (WFP) simply to feed their families, the largest single dependent population in the world

Most of the movement impediments the Palestinians face are as a result of their attacks on Israelis. Maybe if the Palestinian people hadn't elected a terrorist group as their representatives - thus indicating, as if there was any doubt, their wholehearted support for suicide attacks on Israeli civilians, the movement impediments might have been lower.

I agree with you about voting for Hamas. I think that was a mistake. But you also need to realize that only a handful of countries in the world have classfied Hamas as a terrorist organization, so their status is debatable. The problem is that the choice of the Palestinians was between Fatah and Hamas - both of which are considered terrorists organizations, and Fatah had recently had a corruption scandal.

Palestinians have learned that sitting and waiting politely, writing letters, and signing petitions is not going to get change, just as the First Nations in Canada have recognized the same thing. The difference is that if Palestinians set up road blocks - they will be shot.

The conditions are deplorable, and rapidly getting worse, and there is nothing they can do about it. What are they supposed to do?

If they are quiet Israel ignores them. If they are loud Israel kills them.

[WIP]

I'm certainly not going to apologize for anyone that launches or detonates anything that harms a fellow human being. I'm quite certain the experience of feeling oppressed and terrified is something that Israelies and Palestinians are both horrified with. Why is it so outragous however if the moral obligations of people that do these things to each other are pointed out in proportion to the death and destruction they result in?

So far, I am not seeing any evidence that the Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians, like Hamas is trying to do. The difference in proportion of deaths is due to the crude, unsophisticated weapons that Hamas has used so far. If they get a hold of advanced surface to surface missiles, and have the capacity to arm them with chemical, biological or nuclear warheads, do you have any doubt that they would use them?

Things sound like they're going to get a lot worse over there and we can probably expect the polarization in the rest of the world to get a lot worse too. I think the people who need to feel the pressure of moral obligation the most in this world are outsiders who seem to think that one side is somehow more justified in its actions than the other.

And we should also not feel a kneejerk need to predetermine that both sides have to be equally at fault in a military conflict. If one side is clearly the aggressor, and continues to make statements that their ultimate goal is to destroy the enemy, there doesn't seem to be anyway to deal with them in any sort of meaningful peace talks. Either they will win or be destroyed, or the people presently supporting them will become disillusioned with their grinding state of misery and want an alternative solution to a bloody war of attrition.

I don't think there is any excuse for not trying to see this conflict from both sides or better yet from neither. In fact I think anyone who does choose one side over another has a lot to apologize for. Given how much death and destruction is being sustained by outsiders picking sides this willful ignorance is more abominable and amoral than anything the poor people in that part of the world are doing to each other.

I cannot get emotionally tied to either side of a conflict based on rival religious claims. But regardless of whether the Zionist Movement was valid, more than half of the World's Jewish population now lives in Israel. Most Israelis are willing to make major concessions for a meaninful peace agreement with the Arab World.

The extreme Orthodox Zionists who are building new settlements, and want to claim all of the land, are a minority who are being funded primarily by right wing Christian Zionist groups run by idiots like John Hagee and Pat Robertson, who are trying to set everything in motion for the Battle of Armageddon. If the Palestinians, and surrounding Arab states were willing to guarantee the security of a State of Israel with the pre-1967 borders, the majority of Israelis would force a pullout of all of those West Bank settlements. But as long as they are in a neverending state of war with an enemy that wants to kill them all, they have to engage enemies who fire rockets at their cities, and maintain the walls and the roadblocks to prevent infiltration by suicide bombers.

[WIP]

They have just handed the next election over to Hamas.

And that is further evidence that Hamas deliberately started the war, since their inability to make good on promises of improving living conditions in Gaza was reducing their support. They started a war to win the next election.

Hamas didn't start a war. They fired some missiles. Israel started a war.

And you don't consider firing a few missiles at a neigbouring country to be an act of war? What is it, a temper tantrum? You don't seem to be willing to hold them to any sort of ethical standard of behaviour.

If you want to suggest that Hamas is responsible because they fired missiles, then you have to accept that Hamas fired missles because Israel killed 6 Hamas members during a ceasefire - and so on.

And if they were members of Hamas, that means they are military combatants and not civilians! Hamas will go out of their way to deliberately try to kill civilians, but for some reason you think this is morally equivalent to killing Hamas fighters.

No one is saying Israel needs to get used to rocket attacks, but as long as there are people that hate Israel they will happen and Israel is in the process of creating even more people to hate them. Do you think that Palestinians should get used to assasinations by drones? Do you think

The leaders of Hamas should get used to assassination attempts by drones if they consider launching rocket attacks on civilians to be legitimate military action.

Palestinians should get used to the settlers taking the best lands in Gaza?

Again, if you have legitimate grievances, you can seriously damage your case by abominable conduct such as arming suicide bombers with explosives packed with nails and metal shrapnel, in order to maximize the likelihood of maiming women and children in many of these attacks. When the suicide bombings were rampant, there were usually ten people seriously injured for everyone killed, and the story about the people left injured and seriously maimed by these attacks received little attention in the West. To what depths are you willing to go for a land claim?

And if it's about land, why the reluctance to recognize Israel's right to exist? And BTW, the offers that include a right of return that would dump 3 or 4 million Palestinians into Israel don't qualify.

Well, I see that you are on the sayanim distribution list. Excellent job of cutting and pasting by the way.

What the hell is sayanim? Those 4 points are no cut and paste. There have been a number of Israeli military analysts over the years, who have pointed out the fact that those scenarios illustrate why terrorism is such a profitable strategy, even in the face of heavy retaliation from the Israeli side.

This 'human shield' nonsense is preposterous. First of all, Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Secondly, what do you expect them to do. Should they set up a separate area in Palestine where only terrorists live so that Israel can decimate them? Shall they march in a nice little line, with bright red uniforms out to a field where Israel can kill them with their 50 billion dollar war planes without risking civilians?

It's not that crowded that they have to set up their rocket launchers near schools and hospitals! It's pretty obvious the intention of that strategy. You mean they can't even go outside the city limits to launch rockets, and have to set up gun emplacements on hsopitals and schools.

The concept is just absurd. The Vietnamese did the same thing against the US because the US has superior military power.

Well thanks for reminding us, because the Viet Cong did not do the same thing as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade -- they at least had the decency to direct their attacks at military targets.

I see. So I guess by the same token Israel wins when Israeli civilians die?

Possibly, at least to some extent, since the forceful military response to this round of rocket attacks is being attributed to some extent to the Olmert Government's concerns about their fortunes in the upcoming Israeli election. The downside is that they don't have the luxury of being able to terrorize their own population, so if there are too many Israeli casualties, as in the clash with Hezbollah, that could weaken their position.