Israeli assault targets symbols of Hamas power

[HAL 9000 96]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

[mawilson 2,133]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

The deal was on the table. Arafat said no.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hamas may have vowed to destroy Israel, but the reality is that they lack the capacity to bring that about.

While both groups are victims of the circumstances which led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent conflicts which redefined its borders - it can hardly be argued that the conduct of these factions grants either moral superiority.

If sympathies tend to lie toward the Palestinians I don't think its because of the actions of their wacky and unstable government/s (or indeed private individuals and militant groups operating independently of government), but because so many people caught up in the conflict are essentially being dragged along for the ride.

The Israelis are far from blameless in this respect - their government certainly does have justification for stopping the rocket attacks, but its difficult to be sympathetic when they're bombing targets in densely populated areas - regardless of civilian casualties. As far as that goes - the only justification trotted out for this is that Hamas, by virtue of having infrastructure in densely populated urban areas are using civilians as human shields. Again there is some truth to this - but using it as a blanket justification to excuse themselves from any responsibility for collateral damage to the civilian population seems to me to be rather dishonest.

Of course its not just the Israeli government either - the Israelis also have extremist elements in their own population which are conducting terrorism against Palestinians. The only real difference is that the Israeli govt and law enforcement infrastructure has a better handle on controlling those people (and indeed an interest in controlling those people) than the Palestinians do.

[HAL 9000 96]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

The deal was on the table. Arafat said no.

The dude is dead. Move on.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hamas may have vowed to destroy Israel, but the reality is that they lack the capacity to bring that about.

While both groups are victims of the circumstances which led to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and the subsequent conflicts which redefined its borders - it can hardly be argued that the conduct of these factions grants either moral superiority.

If sympathies tend to lie toward the Palestinians I don't think its because of the actions of their wacky and unstable government/s (or indeed private individuals and militant groups operating independently of government), but because so many people caught up in the conflict are essentially being dragged along for the ride.

The Israelis are far from blameless in this respect - their government certainly does have justification for stopping the rocket attacks, but its difficult to be sympathetic when they're bombing targets in densely populated areas - regardless of civilian casualties. As far as that goes - the only justification trotted out for this is that Hamas, by virtue of having infrastructure in densely populated urban areas are using civilians as human shields. Again there is some truth to this - but using it as a blanket justification to excuse themselves from any responsibility for collateral damage to the civilian population seems to me to be rather dishonest.

Of course its not just the Israeli government either - the Israelis also have extremist elements in their own population which are conducting terrorism against Palestinians. The only real difference is that the Israeli govt and law enforcement infrastructure has a better handle on controlling those people (and indeed an interest in controlling those people) than the Palestinians do.

I wonder if someone truly interested in real peace for all parties inside the Israeli government has considered striking a real deal with forward-minded Palestinians that could establish a peaceful, Israel-respecting Palestinian government that would step in after Israel finishes off Hamas. Oh... right... two problems with that even if it did exist:

1. You can't start a new country with everything in shambles and expect both the citizens of that nation and its representative government to be happy.

2. When extremists can easily influence a government's course of action, opposing extremists are emboldened. Kind of like how Al Qaeda took root in Iraq only after the US invasion this time around.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

i'm asking this seriously, for your serious thoughts on the subject:

Do you think a two-state solution can work? And if so, what happens to all the Palestinians (Christian and Muslim Arabs) living in Israel?

Just asking your thoughts, because i think about it sometimes... when i'm not thinking about other things.

[HAL 9000 96]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

i'm asking this seriously, for your serious thoughts on the subject:

Do you think a two-state solution can work? And if so, what happens to all the Palestinians (Christian and Muslim Arabs) living in Israel?

Just asking your thoughts, because i think about it sometimes... when i'm not thinking about other things.

I think it could happen, most definitely. Its just that people are going to need a serious attitude readjustment with perhaps a great deal of nationalized psychological counseling to help remove so much hate on both sides.

As for Israeli Arabs... well... if they are citizens/residents of Israel and choose to stay, then I hope Israel is accommodating to them as citizens. I would hope the same of the new government of Palestine with any non Muslims that would reside there.

[mawilson 2,133]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

The deal was on the table. Arafat said no.

The dude is dead. Move on.

So is the deal. It was a one-time offer.

[MandR 0]

When are the Hamas going to realize it's not in their best intrest to ** with Israel?!!!

It's like poking a Kodiac bear with a stick... all you do is piss 'em off!

Are you saying that Hamas' rockets which killed no Israelis warrented killing over 300 Palestinians? How many Palestinian lives are worth one Israeli life?

HUH ???

You did just say that no Israelis were or have been killed by hamas' rockets attacks. You really need to do some updated reading and research on that incorrect statement.

How many Israelis died from Hamas' rockets that were launched before Israel started this slaughter of Palestinians? Please provide your source.

HERE YOU GO................. Read away

Israelis Killed

Apparently your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.

Again, how many Israelis were killed by Hamas' ROCKET ATTACKS for which Israel is supposedly relatiating against? I did not ask how many Israeli's have been killed since the year 2000 by any other means. I am not even referring to rocket attacks before the peace agreement was broken. I'm talking about how many Israelis were killed as a result of what the Israeli government is now retaliating for.

I'll wait.

Ah.... you need to be more clear in your statements. Your last sentance is NOW asking for something totaly different from what was previously asked. The question has now done a 360.

Now I'll answer the new question. In the period of December 19 (the end of the So Called Peace Treaty) until this past weekend (roughly 1 week) no Israeli's have been killed. But is is only a matter of time.

BUT, as I have stated before, is Israel supposed to just sit back and do nothing each and every day that rockets / missiles are launched into Israel from Gaza since December 19......... I DON'T THINK SO.

Reread my original question.

How many Israelis died from Hamas' rockets that were launched before Israel started this slaughter of Palestinians? Please provide your source.

Maybe someone sitting near you who understands how to comprehend English can help?

Again.... you have asked 2 totaly seperate questions. Both to which I have answered.

1. Your Q. How many Israelis died from Hamas' rockets that were launched before Israel started this slaughter.

My A. Look to my post from yesterday for the link and count for yourself. That will get you your answer.

2. Your Q. How many Israelis were killed as a result of what the Israeli government is now retaliating for

My A. In the period of December 19 (the end of the so called peace treaty) until this past weekend (roughly 1 week)

no Israeli's have been killed.

Now regarding my comprehension of English, I think my English background and schooling..... Not in the U.S. would put your english skills to shame.....

Edited December 30, 2008 by MandR

[HAL 9000 96]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

The deal was on the table. Arafat said no.

The dude is dead. Move on.

So is the deal. It was a one-time offer.

Hence we have people with attitude problems making things worse over there.

[Risto 0]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

How about 3 state solution? Israel, Palestine and Hamastan in Gaza

[DeadPoolX 9]

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Israel is, more or less, a cover for what the Arab nations want. They use the Palestinians to do their dirty work and hide behind them as "victims of Israeli aggression." If fighting were to cease there still wouldn't be peace. The Palestinians (and other Arab countries) want the Israelis dead for one very important reason -- they are Jewish.

People all over the world haven't needed a better reason to kill. In fact, that's part of the reason so many -- both outside the Middle East and inside it -- despise Israel. They're Jews who defend themselves and fight for their people, instead of allowing themselves to be beaten or killed off by whatever power is in-charge at the moment.

I also find it amusing that so many believe if Israel was gone, the aggression the West feels from the Middle East would dissipate. Israel is a westernized nation. The Palestinians and other Arab nations there hate the West and everything it stands for today. If Israel were destroyed, the terrorist groups would simply find another outlet. I'd say North America and most of Europe would then be targeted (even more so than they are today). If anything, Israel provides a convenient buffer for the West. So long as it exists, their Middle Eastern aggressors will aim at them first.

[Tahoma 2,292]

The difference I see here is that terrorism against a military target is not terrorism at all. The military is fair game while civilians are not.

Then you just proved that Israel is a terrorist state.

I did no such thing. Hamas is both using Palestinians as shields and recruiting them to do perform suicide bombings against Israel. A civilian is no longer a civilian when they take up arms.

I would respectfully disagree. Whether the target is civilian or military, any violence perpetrated by an organisation which does not constitute a nation's or state's military, can be defined as an act of terrorism. If the act is carried by a nation's military, it is an act of war.

The whole of the "troubles", when British soldiers were murdered in Ulster, were terrorist acts. The attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party was not so much an act of terrorism, as this is a more modern-day expression, than an act of rebellion. As was the storming of the Bastille in France.

And to be fair also, 15 of the 91 dead in the King David Hotel bombing were Jews. Later on, when the Irgun offered to join with the Hagganah, with a boatload of weapons and ammunition, the Hagganah sank the boat, with the loss of more Jewish lives. Leader of the Hagganah at the time? One Yitzhak Rabin, also future Prime Minister of Israel. Hamas and Fatah, anyone?

Yes, some Jews were killed in the King David Hotel bombing. They were all warned of the impending strike. If no one bothered to listen, then that's their fault.

As I said before, attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism. Whether or not a country has condoned the acts (which the Palestinians have done and so do other Arab nations) is irrelevant. The military is designed to fight and therefore recognizes the risk of being attacked at any time.

I'm wondering where the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon fits into your definition of terrorism...("attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism").

[DeadPoolX 9]

The difference I see here is that terrorism against a military target is not terrorism at all. The military is fair game while civilians are not.

Then you just proved that Israel is a terrorist state.

I did no such thing. Hamas is both using Palestinians as shields and recruiting them to do perform suicide bombings against Israel. A civilian is no longer a civilian when they take up arms.

I would respectfully disagree. Whether the target is civilian or military, any violence perpetrated by an organisation which does not constitute a nation's or state's military, can be defined as an act of terrorism. If the act is carried by a nation's military, it is an act of war.

The whole of the "troubles", when British soldiers were murdered in Ulster, were terrorist acts. The attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party was not so much an act of terrorism, as this is a more modern-day expression, than an act of rebellion. As was the storming of the Bastille in France.

And to be fair also, 15 of the 91 dead in the King David Hotel bombing were Jews. Later on, when the Irgun offered to join with the Hagganah, with a boatload of weapons and ammunition, the Hagganah sank the boat, with the loss of more Jewish lives. Leader of the Hagganah at the time? One Yitzhak Rabin, also future Prime Minister of Israel. Hamas and Fatah, anyone?

Yes, some Jews were killed in the King David Hotel bombing. They were all warned of the impending strike. If no one bothered to listen, then that's their fault.

As I said before, attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism. Whether or not a country has condoned the acts (which the Palestinians have done and so do other Arab nations) is irrelevant. The military is designed to fight and therefore recognizes the risk of being attacked at any time.

I'm wondering where the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon fits into your definition of terrorism...("attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism").

I would not classify the 9/11 attacks as terrorism if it had been limited to the Pentagon. That was not the case (I wouldn't call the WTC towers in NY a military installation) so the label of terrorism fit.

Edited December 30, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Tahoma 2,292]

The difference I see here is that terrorism against a military target is not terrorism at all. The military is fair game while civilians are not.

Then you just proved that Israel is a terrorist state.

I did no such thing. Hamas is both using Palestinians as shields and recruiting them to do perform suicide bombings against Israel. A civilian is no longer a civilian when they take up arms.

I would respectfully disagree. Whether the target is civilian or military, any violence perpetrated by an organisation which does not constitute a nation's or state's military, can be defined as an act of terrorism. If the act is carried by a nation's military, it is an act of war.

The whole of the "troubles", when British soldiers were murdered in Ulster, were terrorist acts. The attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party was not so much an act of terrorism, as this is a more modern-day expression, than an act of rebellion. As was the storming of the Bastille in France.

And to be fair also, 15 of the 91 dead in the King David Hotel bombing were Jews. Later on, when the Irgun offered to join with the Hagganah, with a boatload of weapons and ammunition, the Hagganah sank the boat, with the loss of more Jewish lives. Leader of the Hagganah at the time? One Yitzhak Rabin, also future Prime Minister of Israel. Hamas and Fatah, anyone?

Yes, some Jews were killed in the King David Hotel bombing. They were all warned of the impending strike. If no one bothered to listen, then that's their fault.

As I said before, attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism. Whether or not a country has condoned the acts (which the Palestinians have done and so do other Arab nations) is irrelevant. The military is designed to fight and therefore recognizes the risk of being attacked at any time.

I'm wondering where the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon fits into your definition of terrorism...("attacks against the military are not acts of terrorism").

I would not classify the 9/11 attacks as terrorism if it had been limited to the Pentagon. That was not the case (I wouldn't call the WTC towers in NY a military installation) so the label of terrorism fit.

hmmmm...that would seem a somewhat tortured logic to the casual observer. Do you really believe that Americans (and most of the world) would not have called it terrorism if the Pentagon were the only target on that fateful day?