(snip)

Today, the Palestinian state is largely a punitive construct devised by the Palestinians' worst historical enemies: Israel and its implacable ally, the US. The intention behind the state today is to constrain Palestinian aspirations territorially, to force them to give up on their moral rights, renege on their history and submit to Israel's diktats on fundamental issues of sovereignty.

Its core is the rump Palestinian Authority that is now fundamentally sustained by the IDF presence on the West Bank. The PA is increasingly being turned into an accoutrement of Israeli occupation; its function is to serve Israeli security interests as designated by Israel itself and the US military teams that have been overseeing the buildup of Palestinian security forces.

It is very unclear how an independent state can be built on the spears of the very force that is occupying it. Or how state institutions can be constructed while the occupation continues to determine every aspect of Palestinian life.

The notion of a state was an offshoot of the Palestinian struggle and not its nodal point. Nonetheless, there was a period from the mid-1970s onwards when the state could have represented the point where Palestinian national aspirations met the boundaries of what is possible.

Now this concept is less attractive than ever. Olmert demands of Palestinians that they must give up their history. President Bush decides for them what their borders and rights must be. And Tony Blair wags a finger and tells Palestinians that they won't get a state at all unless, it meets his high standards (sic) of governance . . .

http://www.counterpunch.org/khalidi12152007.html

There's little use in fantasizing about a "Palestinian State" because the Palestinians and their myriad blocs and terror groups have basically proven themselves essentially ungovernable. You can draw some lines on a map, hold some elections and even put up walls to create a "state" in name, but if the people within those boundaries are just going to put more emphasis on religious zealotry and brainless vengeance over the the health of their economy and the future of their children, it's a pointless exercise.

I agree with Kanuckistang.

Plus, I'd like to add, sovereignty comes from within. It cannot come from without.

The tone of your article seems to be one of an author who is expecting the Israeli, American, and British governments to provide sovereignty to the Palestinians. This cannot happen, simply by virtue of the fact that if the Palestinians were able to govern themselves, they wouldn't need anyone else's permission to do so.

There's little use in fantasizing about a "Palestinian State" because the Palestinians and their myriad blocs and terror groups have basically proven themselves essentially ungovernable. You can draw some lines on a map, hold some elections and even put up walls to create a "state" in name, but if the people within those boundaries are just going to put more emphasis on religious zealotry and brainless vengeance over the the health of their economy and the future of their children, it's a pointless exercise.


The more concrete and obvious explanation for the pointlessness of a Palestinian state is that Israel has succeeded in appropriating so much land in so many strategic locations (including where the acquifer is located, where the tillable land is, etc.) that a state located on what is left over would not be viable.

This was the purpose of the settlement movement from the beginning, and it has largely succeeded. This process has unfolded as a series of empirically verifiable events and has nothing to do with a the mindless invocation of religious zealotry or any other racist assumptions about the victimized people being inherently "ungovernable."

The question now is what options are available to Israel after it has killed the two state solution.

Do the Palestinians need a government?

The only way a "palestinian" state would work is if they agreed to live in reservations. and have the Israelis oversee them. A sort of Bureau of Palestinian Affairs!!:D Oops, I forgot, they already have that!:rolleyes:

What all that really means is that palestinians proved to anyone who want to see - starting with israelis - that they are not interested in their state as a part of TWO states solution.
So now it's time to the attempts to expain their unwillingness, and to explain how thei desere to have their state INSTEAD and not side by side with Israel still makes them right and Israel wrong.

From my experience - the western world will willingly buy this king of propaganda, just like it did with absurd anti-israeli ideas before.

(snip)
It is very unclear how an independent state can be built on the spears of the very force that is occupying it. Or how state institutions can be constructed while the occupation continues to determine every aspect of Palestinian life.



That's exactly how Israel was built.

Instead of going through answers based on "rooting team" and anger for "the other side", I'll just reprint...word for word...parts of the Hamas Charter (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm)...

Remember...this is their elected "government" speaking...

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."If you believe people who think like this are rational decision-makers and could govern themselves with neighboring peace, go right ahead...

I don't...

And this is our humane and enlightened (sic) policy at work, illustrating how to deal with the "ungovernable savages" like these men who are detained, tortured and interrogated daily for the crime of going to work each morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1FaWE1SIZk

And this is our humane and enlightened (sic) policy at work, illustrating how to deal with the "ungovernable savages" like these men who are detained, tortured and interrogated daily for the crime of going to work each morning.

I lost sympathy for the Palestinians when they elected a terrorist organization to lead them forward. The Palestinians gave this terrorist organization and its policies a mandate to represent them. If the Palestinians want to be represented by terrorists, what else are we to make of them?

Sure, not every Palestinian is a terror-loving radical. But we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about their collective, their society as a whole. Enough of them support Hamas and what it stands for, that there "is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" -- that is, diplomatic statecraft, treaties, negotiation and so on are not even to be considered, just more war and more terror -- that they shouldn't be surprised when, as a collective, they are eyed suspiciously and treated as potential cafe bombers, every last one of them.

And FWIW, I have little sympathy for Israelis either but this thread isn't about the Jewish half of this maelstrom.

Desperate people do desperate things. I'd probably support a terrorist organization if I was under the boot heel of an oppressive, dehumanizing regime.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

I lost sympathy for the Palestinians when they elected a terrorist organization to lead them forward. The Palestinians gave this terrorist organization and its policies a mandate to represent them. If the Palestinians want to be represented by terrorists, what else are we to make of them?


Well, you are someone who believes (according to your previous post) that an occupied people has a duty to show themselves to be "governable" by an occupying foreign army; for that reason, your "sympathy" is neither wanted nor needed in this context.

Desperate people do desperate things. I'd probably support a terrorist organization if I was under the boot heel of an oppressive, dehumanizing regime.

Chicken and egg. The wall, the checkpoints, the incursions are all due to cafe and pizza shop bombings, incessant rocket attacks and so on. I bet that if the rocket attacks stopped, if suicide bombings of cafes and pizza shops and nightclubs and so on were to cease, things would change for the better.

Most of Israel's other Arab neighbors get along just fine with it. But if they started heaving bombs and missiles and sent suicide bombers you can bet they too would feel a military response.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Indeed. Many of Israel's hero-leaders were terrorists back in the 1930s and 1940s.

But it was a different world back then. I don't know how many teenaged Palestinians have to blow themselves to smithereens before they and the men sending them out with bombs strapped to themselves realize that the path to a better stead for them and their children and their children's children simply cannot include bombings and terror. It hasn't worked yet, why would it work for the umpteenth kid? Or the umpteenth missile?

The fact is, if both sides were truly serious about peace and coexistence, treaties could be signed, international oversight given, peacekeepers stationed, maps redrawn etc etc and the problem would be essentially fixed in weeks. If that's what they wanted. I'm certain the IDF would deal with radical Jews to keep such peace. After all, just recently, the IDF evicted a bunch of radical "this is my holy land" Jewish settlers... Do you see the Palestinian leadership reigning in the radicals on their side lobbing missiles into Israel?

As I said earlier, the problem is that the Palestinians and their leaders have, apparently, put the religious notion of Jihad and their hatred of the Jews over love of their children and selves and over their desire for a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. They see their kids as nothing more than martyrs, to be sent to fight and die against the dogs. They've elected a radical, terrorist organization, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, to lead them. They could have chosen a path of negotiation and good faith and whatnot, but they aren't interested in that. They elected "warriors" and terror tactics and they're reaping the rewards of that choice.

Most of Israel's other Arab neighbors get along just fine with it.

Maybe that's because Israel's other arab neighbors aren't governed by the Israeli military. Or is that too subtle a point for your analysis?

Well, you are someone who believes (according to your previous post) that an occupied people has a duty to show themselves to be "governable" by an occupying foreign army; for that reason, your "sympathy" is neither wanted nor needed in this context.

It's not about being governable by a foreign army. It's about selecting leaders in their own society that strive to cooperate with their neighbors, leadership that eschews violence and terror and inflammatory rhetoric for the purpose of advancing the stead of their people. The people chose instead to have terrorists represent them.

This isn't being governed. This isn't about education and health, about roads and sewers and foreign trade agreements. It's nothing more than savage vigilantism, revenge-seeking. This isn't being governed...it's joining a mob.

Kanuckistang:

The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a clean and fair election. Given a choice between Fatah, (the corrupt recipients of US aid to carry out Israel's security operations) or a party who made fighting corruption and repairing infrastructure a top priority, the Palestinians made a principled and informed choice by electing Hamas. The American people voted for Bush twice in highly questionable and contested elections, unleashing a reign of terror that continues unabated to this day. So please don't talk to me about "terrorists" until you get your facts straight and sort out that racist double standard of yours.

Maybe that's because Israel's other arab neighbors aren't governed by the Israeli military. Or is that too subtle a point for your analysis?

Again, chicken and egg. Which came first, the helicopter attack on a car carrying terrorist leaders or the missiles their guys fired into Israel the night before? Action, reaction. If the Palestinians want less IDF presence in their midst, they would should do something about the terrorist presence in their midst first.

Do you think the IDF wants to expend energy occupying places like Gaza?

Could it be that if the missiles stopped flying, if the suicide bombers stopped crossing checkpoints and so on that the IDF could simply pull out and leave the Palestinians to themselves?

[QUOTE][It's not about being governable by a foreign army. /QUOTE]

In reality -- as a matter of empirical fact -- Palestine is governed by a foreign army. I assume you are aware of that fact. Therefore, your counterfactual theorizing about how self-governing people ought to behave are of no interest to anyone.

By the way, an occupied people has no duty, moral or legal, to "strive to cooperate with their neighbors" who happen to be the occupiers, "eschew inflammatory rhetoric" or any of the other idiotic bromides advanced in your previous post.

Kanuckistang:

The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a clean and fair election.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Thank you.

Given a choice between Fatah, (the corrupt recipients of US aid to carry out Israel's security operations) or a party who made fighting corruption and repairing infrastructure a top priority

Hamas' top priority is the destruction of Israel.

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

If repairing infrastructure were truly their first priority, they would set aside their hatred of the state of Israel and be eager to improve the health of their economy. Instead, they pump up and support the radicals in their midst and spew inflammatory rhetoric.

the Palestinians made a principled and informed choice by electing Hamas.

Hamas is a terrorist organization elected by the Palestinians to represent them.

The American people voted for Bush twice in highly questionable and contested elections, unleashing a reign of terror that continues unabated to this day.

Hey, I wanted to leave America out of this but now that you mention it, I think the very same way. I have no sympathy or respect for Americans for electing that twit and his cabal of international terrorists. Once? Maybe. Honest mistake. Twice? Nope, this was purposeful and they're all a bunch of dolts that get what they deserve.

Happy?

So please don't talk to me about "terrorists" until you get your facts straight and sort out that racist double standard of yours.

**** you. It's not about racism. The Germans under Hitler supported that lunatic as he tried to take over the world and purge it of undesireables. They were colelctively a bunch of facist goons. America and Bush, same deal: electing this war mongering dufus and the terroristic fiendish ideologues twice warrants the label "dolts".

You'll notice these are "white", Western nations I'm talking about. I don't care that the Palestinians are "brown". They elected a terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, a group that puts that priority over all others, including the health and welfare of their children. These people are no different from Nazi-supporting Germans or Bush supporting Murcans.

As a result of the instability it deliberately provokes, Israel has developed an impressive state security apparatus, developing exportable technology that is the basis of its economy. Israel would not be beneficiary to so much US largesse if it abandoned its current apartheid policies.

In reality -- as a matter of empirical fact -- Palestine is governed by a foreign army. I assume you are aware of that fact. Therefore, your counterfactual theorizing about how self-governing people ought to behave are of no interest to anyone.

So you support the Palestinians electing a terrorist group to represent them? Yes or no?

So you support the Palestinians electing a terrorist group to represent them? Yes or no?

Is that what you call a political party that doesn't sell out the interests of the people to foreign occupiers?

So you support the Palestinians electing a terrorist group to represent them? Yes or no?


The word "terrorist" has no super-linguistic, quasi-magic value, except to the brainwashed. The choice presented was the party of corruption and collaboration (Fatah) or the party of resistance to occupation. I agree with their choice.

Again, chicken and egg. Which came first, the helicopter attack on a car carrying terrorist leaders or the missiles their guys fired into Israel the night before? Action, reaction. If the Palestinians want less IDF presence in their midst, they would should do something about the terrorist presence in their midst first.

Do you think the IDF wants to expend energy occupying places like Gaza?

Could it be that if the missiles stopped flying, if the suicide bombers stopped crossing checkpoints and so on that the IDF could simply pull out and leave the Palestinians to themselves?

IDF with all the settlers allready pulled out from Gaza.
Palestinians, who probably got more "desperate" by this move are using just the same areas, where the settlments used to be, to fire rockets on Israel.

Suzuran, how do you explain the facts, I wrote about in my previous post?

Kanucki, would you consider the Israeli government's military actions against their enemies (i.e. Palestinians, Lebanon) acts of terrorism?

Is that what you call a political party that doesn't sell out the interests of the people to foreign occupiers?

So you don't think Hamas is a terrorist organization?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Yasin_RPG.gif

BTW, when are you going to withdraw the accusation of racism you leveled against me?

The word "terrorist" has no super-linguistic, quasi-magic value, except to the brainwashed. The choice presented was the party of corruption and collaboration (Fatah) or the party of resistance to occupation. I agree with their choice.

Actions speak louder than mere words folks. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, the US, Japan and Israel and is banned (hmm...wonder why?) in Jordan, Australia and the UK.(1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)) Ever wonder why?

Do you consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization or not? Does Hamas -- and you -- consider Gaza to be occupied or is it that all the land Israel sits upon? What does a pizza parlour or cafe have to do with fighting this occupying force?

Kanucki, would you consider the Israeli government's military actions against their enemies (i.e. Palestinians, Lebanon) acts of terrorism?

Acts of aggression by a state that intentionally result in civilian casualties are definitely state terrorism.

Acts of defense by one state against an enemy that intentionally hides amongst civilians is not so clear cut.

Acts of aggression by a state that intentionally result in civilian casualties are definitely state terrorism.

Acts of defense by one state against an enemy that intentionally hides amongst civilians is not so clear cut.

For the sake of clarity, is that a yes, no, or I don't know.

I lost sympathy for the Palestinians when they elected a terrorist organization to lead them forward. The Palestinians gave this terrorist organization and its policies a mandate to represent them. If the Palestinians want to be represented by terrorists, what else are we to make of them?

Sure, not every Palestinian is a terror-loving radical. But we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about their collective, their society as a whole. Enough of them support Hamas and what it stands for, that there "is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" -- that is, diplomatic statecraft, treaties, negotiation and so on are not even to be considered, just more war and more terror -- that they shouldn't be surprised when, as a collective, they are eyed suspiciously and treated as potential cafe bombers, every last one of them.


Thank you so much for speaking the truth, and I definately remember the time when you were pro-palestinian and anti-zionist. Thank you so much for the honesty:nice:

Desperate people do desperate things. I'd probably support a terrorist organization if I was under the boot heel of an oppressive, dehumanizing regime.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

And of course that also includes Baruch Goldstein, violent Kahane followers and anybody that supports them, am I right?:confused:

After all, many Jewish settlers (who lost most of their family to muslim terrorists) are also very desperate and do desperate things when they are oppressed on what they claim is "their land". What can you say about that?:p

Well, you are someone who believes (according to your previous post) that an occupied people has a duty to show themselves to be "governable" by an occupying foreign army; for that reason, your "sympathy" is neither wanted nor needed in this context.

You missed his point, even when Israel COMPLETELY left Gaza and they were no longer "occupied", they even more "ungovernable" than they were when the "occupying army" was there.

Why did Israel even "occupy" those lands first place? Just out of fun? If they were so "governable" and "civilized" before 1967, as you try to claim, why did they feel the need to attack Israel from all sides, be occupied and therefore "not be able" to be civilized or governable for the next 40 years? If Israeli Army is the ONLY problem, how come they do everything possible to keep it there?:confused:

Chicken and egg. The wall, the checkpoints, the incursions are all due to cafe and pizza shop bombings, incessant rocket attacks and so on. I bet that if the rocket attacks stopped, if suicide bombings of cafes and pizza shops and nightclubs and so on were to cease, things would change for the better.

Most of Israel's other Arab neighbors get along just fine with it. But if they started heaving bombs and missiles and sent suicide bombers you can bet they too would feel a military response.


I agree.

Also, Iran and many Arab countries are giving Palestinians weapons and money to kill Jews, just because they learned some lessons from 1967, and now use Palestinians as their tools to hurt Jews, because they figured that everytime they did the dirty work themselves, they lost half of their land and the world didn't feel sorry for them either, so they needed some kind of "so-called" victims here, since not only Israel has a stronger military but also the international community doesn't care about aggresive arab countries who attack and then lose their land. The term "palestinians" as a reference for Arabs only, was not born until the 1960's, in fact.

But it was a different world back then. I don't know how many teenaged Palestinians have to blow themselves to smithereens before they and the men sending them out with bombs strapped to themselves realize that the path to a better stead for them and their children and their children's children simply cannot include bombings and terror. It hasn't worked yet, why would it work for the umpteenth kid? Or the umpteenth missile?

The fact is, if both sides were truly serious about peace and coexistence, treaties could be signed, international oversight given, peacekeepers stationed, maps redrawn etc etc and the problem would be essentially fixed in weeks. If that's what they wanted. I'm certain the IDF would deal with radical Jews to keep such peace. After all, just recently, the IDF evicted a bunch of radical "this is my holy land" Jewish settlers... Do you see the Palestinian leadership reigning in the radicals on their side lobbing missiles into Israel?

As I said earlier, the problem is that the Palestinians and their leaders have, apparently, put the religious notion of Jihad and their hatred of the Jews over love of their children and selves and over their desire for a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. They see their kids as nothing more than martyrs, to be sent to fight and die against the dogs. They've elected a radical, terrorist organization, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, to lead them. They could have chosen a path of negotiation and good faith and whatnot, but they aren't interested in that. They elected "warriors" and terror tactics and they're reaping the rewards of that choice.

Great points!!

Maybe that's because Israel's other arab neighbors aren't governed by the Israeli military. Or is that too subtle a point for your analysis?

No, it's because they know that if they go 1-on-1 against Israel, they'll lose most of their land again...they may be fanatics, but not completely stupid either:p.

It's not about being governable by a foreign army. It's about selecting leaders in their own society that strive to cooperate with their neighbors, leadership that eschews violence and terror and inflammatory rhetoric for the purpose of advancing the stead of their people. The people chose instead to have terrorists represent them.

This isn't being governed. This isn't about education and health, about roads and sewers and foreign trade agreements. It's nothing more than savage vigilantism, revenge-seeking. This isn't being governed...it's joining a mob.

:nice:

The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a clean and fair election. Given a choice between Fatah, (the corrupt recipients of US aid to carry out Israel's security operations) or a party who made fighting corruption and repairing infrastructure a top priority, the Palestinians made a principled and informed choice by electing Hamas. The American people voted for Bush twice in highly questionable and contested elections, unleashing a reign of terror that continues unabated to this day. So please don't talk to me about "terrorists" until you get your facts straight and sort out that racist double standard of yours.

As terrible as Bush is, he is still not a terrorist. It's stupid to compare any American politicians to Hamas.

Again, chicken and egg. Which came first, the helicopter attack on a car carrying terrorist leaders or the missiles their guys fired into Israel the night before? Action, reaction. If the Palestinians want less IDF presence in their midst, they would should do something about the terrorist presence in their midst first.

Do you think the IDF wants to expend energy occupying places like Gaza?

Could it be that if the missiles stopped flying, if the suicide bombers stopped crossing checkpoints and so on that the IDF could simply pull out and leave the Palestinians to themselves?

:nice:

In reality -- as a matter of empirical fact -- Palestine is governed by a foreign army. I assume you are aware of that fact. Therefore, your counterfactual theorizing about how self-governing people ought to behave are of no interest to anyone.

By the way, an occupied people has no duty, moral or legal, to "strive to cooperate with their neighbors" who happen to be the occupiers, "eschew inflammatory rhetoric" or any of the other idiotic bromides advanced in your previous post.

But the problem is that they act the same way REGARDLESS if they are "occupied" or not. If not, then what could explain their barbaric behavior before 1967?:confused: Or when Israel completely left Gaza for a while?:confused:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzuran
Kanuckistang:

The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a clean and fair election.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Thank you.


Quote:
Given a choice between Fatah, (the corrupt recipients of US aid to carry out Israel's security operations) or a party who made fighting corruption and repairing infrastructure a top priority

Hamas' top priority is the destruction of Israel.

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

If repairing infrastructure were truly their first priority, they would set aside their hatred of the state of Israel and be eager to improve the health of their economy. Instead, they pump up and support the radicals in their midst and spew inflammatory rhetoric.


Quote:
the Palestinians made a principled and informed choice by electing Hamas.

Hamas is a terrorist organization elected by the Palestinians to represent them.


Quote:
The American people voted for Bush twice in highly questionable and contested elections, unleashing a reign of terror that continues unabated to this day.

Hey, I wanted to leave America out of this but now that you mention it, I think the very same way. I have no sympathy or respect for Americans for electing that twit and his cabal of international terrorists. Once? Maybe. Honest mistake. Twice? Nope, this was purposeful and they're all a bunch of dolts that get what they deserve.

Happy?


Quote:
So please don't talk to me about "terrorists" until you get your facts straight and sort out that racist double standard of yours.

**** you. It's not about racism. The Germans under Hitler supported that lunatic as he tried to take over the world and purge it of undesireables. They were colelctively a bunch of facist goons. America and Bush, same deal: electing this war mongering dufus and the terroristic fiendish ideologues twice warrants the label "dolts".

You'll notice these are "white", Western nations I'm talking about. I don't care that the Palestinians are "brown". They elected a terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, a group that puts that priority over all others, including the health and welfare of their children. These people are no different from Nazi-supporting Germans or Bush supporting Murcans.

GREAT point!!:nice:

Is that what you call a political party that doesn't sell out the interests of the people to foreign occupiers?

No, but it is what I call an organization that bombs innocent women and children just because of their ethnicity and religion. Hamas has enough innocent blood on their hands to be considered as terrorists even by many supporters of the Palestinians.

There is no more excuse for Palestinians to support Hamas than for Jewish people to support Baruch Goldstein.

The word "terrorist" has no super-linguistic, quasi-magic value, except to the brainwashed.

If so, how would you call the actions of Hamas in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem?:confused: Just a question.

The choice presented was the party of corruption and collaboration (Fatah) or the party of resistance to occupation. I agree with their choice.

I hope you'll be happy when most Israeli citizens will lose hope in making peace with Palestinians and will elect somebody who actually won't treat them like kids, but will use some force.

With every terrorist activity that Hamas does, Palestinians lose more and more support around the world, and soon, even Arab countries will lose all interest in them, to the point that they will be completely helpless against Israel, and once that happens, the dreams of extreme-right Zionists will come true:). You can agree with their choice of terrorism all you want, but we all know who will be the last to laugh:p.



IDF with all the settlers allready pulled out from Gaza.
Palestinians, who probably got more "desperate" by this move are using just the same areas, where the settlments used to be, to fire rockets on Israel.

I guess Guido just forgot about that one:D.

would you consider the Israeli government's military actions against their enemies (i.e. Palestinians, Lebanon) acts of terrorism?

No, it's self-defense.

BTW, when are you going to withdraw the accusation of racism you leveled against me?

The funny thing is that Jews and Palestinians are of the same race, so if you hate the Palestinians because they are of a certain race, obviously you'd hate the Jews too.

Not even Al Sharpton ever used the "race card" as poorly as anti-zionists. They accused me of being "racist" towards Muslims (as if it was a "race":rolleyes:) and Arabs (I'm from the same race as them) just because I don't tolerate barbaric and violent behavior from ANYBODY.

Actions speak louder than mere words folks. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, the US, Japan and Israel and is banned (hmm...wonder why?) in Jordan, Australia and the UK.(1) Ever wonder why?

Do you consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization or not? Does Hamas -- and you -- consider Gaza to be occupied or is it that all the land Israel sits upon? What does a pizza parlour or cafe have to do with fighting this occupying force?

Thank you very much for speaking the truth!!:nice::nice:

Acts of defense by one state against an enemy that intentionally hides amongst civilians .

I would say it's clear cut enough - this is not a definition of terrorism.

Do you consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization or not?

Instead of me answering a stupid question about the use of a meaningless word, why don't you answer a real question that actually deals with the real, historically determined issues involved in judging Hamas:

Is violence a legitimate means of resisting military occupation, politicide and territorial dispossession?

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada, the EU, the US, Japan and Israel and is banned (hmm...wonder why?) in Jordan, Australia and the UK.(1) Ever wonder why?

Not really. Unlike you, I don't let worthless governments do my thinking for me.

There's little use in fantasizing about a "Palestinian State" because the Palestinians and their myriad blocs and terror groups have basically proven themselves essentially ungovernable. You can draw some lines on a map, hold some elections and even put up walls to create a "state" in name, but if the people within those boundaries are just going to put more emphasis on religious zealotry and brainless vengeance over the the health of their economy and the future of their children, it's a pointless exercise.

Agreed.

If they can't effectively [and non-violently]manage what they presently have,how can they manage a state?

It's not about being governable by a foreign army. It's about selecting leaders in their own society that strive to cooperate with their neighbors, leadership that eschews violence and terror and inflammatory rhetoric for the purpose of advancing the stead of their people. The people chose instead to have terrorists represent them.

This isn't being governed. This isn't about education and health, about roads and sewers and foreign trade agreements. It's nothing more than savage vigilantism, revenge-seeking. This isn't being governed...it's joining a mob.
100% agreement.
Kanuckistang:

The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a clean and fair election.


And some Germans voted for the Nazis,some white Southerners voted for the KKK,those votes deserve no respect,nor do votes for Hamas.


Again, chicken and egg. Which came first, the helicopter attack on a car carrying terrorist leaders or the missiles their guys fired into Israel the night before? Action, reaction. If the Palestinians want less IDF presence in their midst, they would should do something about the terrorist presence in their midst first.

Do you think the IDF wants to expend energy occupying places like Gaza?

Could it be that if the missiles stopped flying, if the suicide bombers stopped crossing checkpoints and so on that the IDF could simply pull out and leave the Palestinians to themselves?

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Thank you.



Hamas' top priority is the destruction of Israel.

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

If repairing infrastructure were truly their first priority, they would set aside their hatred of the state of Israel and be eager to improve the health of their economy. Instead, they pump up and support the radicals in their midst and spew inflammatory rhetoric.



Hamas is a terrorist organization elected by the Palestinians to represent them.



Hey, I wanted to leave America out of this but now that you mention it, I think the very same way. I have no sympathy or respect for Americans for electing that twit and his cabal of international terrorists. Once? Maybe. Honest mistake. Twice? Nope, this was purposeful and they're all a bunch of dolts that get what they deserve.

Happy?



**** you. It's not about racism. The Germans under Hitler supported that lunatic as he tried to take over the world and purge it of undesireables. They were colelctively a bunch of facist goons. America and Bush, same deal: electing this war mongering dufus and the terroristic fiendish ideologues twice warrants the label "dolts".

You'll notice these are "white", Western nations I'm talking about. I don't care that the Palestinians are "brown". They elected a terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, a group that puts that priority over all others, including the health and welfare of their children. These people are no different from Nazi-supporting Germans or Bush supporting Murcans.



100% agreement.

For the sake of clarity, is that a yes, no, or I don't know.

I'm sure from the perspective of the Hamas militant, it's not "terrorism" to blow up a coffee shop. It's "doing god's work", it's "jihad", it's acting as a soldier of Islam etc etc etc. I'm sure to the American military it's not "terrorism" to launch a bunch of cruise missiles into a suburb of Baghdad to get one guy. No, that's just "SOP". And if you ask the war's supporters here, they'll tell you "Civilian casualties are a sad consequence of war", though they might leave out the "sad" part and simply call such casualties "collateral damage", a necessary evil when nations go to war.

As guido said, the "word "terrorist" has no super-linguistic, quasi-magic value, except to the brainwashed."

There's no clear-cut, definitive line one crosses in going from terrorist to freedom-fighter to state soldier to ... From my perspective, it is definitely terrorism when a state launches attacks intended to kill civilians. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks. So was the American bombing of Tokyo and Allied attacks on Dresden. So was Hitler's V1 and V2 attacks against London.

When Hamas militants launch missiles indiscriminantly into Israel towns with the express purpose of killing those civilians, I call that terror. Do you?

If Israel returns fire to the source of the missile's smoke trail and hits an elementary school by accident -- not intentionally -- because the militants launched their missiles from the roof of that school, is that really terrorism? I say "no." If Israel knew there was a school there and launched its attack anyway, is that terroristic? I'd say "yes."

Does this help you understand?

Agreed.

If they can't effectively [and non-violently]manage what they presently have,how can they manage a state?

It's not that they can't, it's that they don't appear to want to.

Hamas is putting the destruction of Israel and America and the institution of Sharia law and all the other bronze age goals ahead of building schools and roads and hospitals. And the Palestinian people appear to support that if the last election is any indication.

People have been saying the choice was between corruption and "collaboration" -- whatever the hell that means -- and this wonderful terrorist group leading them. Naturally, they chose the terrorist group :eek7: 'cause destroying Israel is way more important than rewarding some corrupted politicos who embezzled funds with another term in office.

The notion of "collaboration" is so relative. Seen from a safe distance, it's working with the Israelis and Americans to come to a peaceful resolution to disputes. It's negotiation with "enemies" with improving life for Palestinians as the end-game. Seen from within the likes of Hamas, it's sleeping with the pig-dogs, the sub-human Joos, reneging on the duty to Allah to wipe Joos off the map because... Well, we know why. If one chooses to justify the election of a terrorist group to lead because of corruption and "collaboration", then one is as bad as they are.

I don't think it's terrorist when a sovereign nation like Israel defends it's innocent citizens from being bombed and unintentionally kills other innocents.

I do think it's terrorist when vigilantes intentionally kill civilans.

It's not that they can't, it's that they don't appear to want to.


I stand corrected.

For better or worse, a Palestinian state would give Israel a country against which to declare war and to attack. No more hiding behind women and children. Attacks from a Palestinian state would be considered an act of war.

I stand corrected.

I would say it's both.
Those who want - can't' like Abu-Mazen, that I believe does want, but can't.

Thank you so much for speaking the truth, and I definately remember the time when you were pro-palestinian and anti-zionist. Thank you so much for the honesty:nice:

In reality, I honestly don't care about any of them except for the fact that trains blow up in Europe and buildings fall in NA and it's all tied back to this fetid cesspool of religious fervor and strife. I wish the world would build a giant sarcophagus around the ME and open it in five hundred years to see if the people -- if there are any left -- had learned to live together without seeking day and night to gouge each other's eyes out. I wish there was a moratorium on news from that part of the world. I'm sick to death of every single newscast involving more Israeli-Palestinian nonsense; more killed civilians, more missiles, another incursion, more occupying forces, less occupying forces, another summit that will lead nowhere...

I did have a measure of sympathy for the Palestinians until they chose Hamas to lead them. I'm not the only one. The AP wrote

"Islamic militant Hamas' landslide victory in Palestinian elections unnerved the world Thursday, darkening prospects for Mideast peace and ending four decades of rule by the corruption-riddled Fatah Party." (1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FCLKE80&show_article=1))

Faced with corruption on the one hand and a terrorist outfit on the other, the people chose terror. On that day, they made a covenant with the devil, so to speak. They can lie in that bed they've made.

This doesn't let Israel off the proverbial hook. They too need to recognize all factors leading to why Palestinians chose this path and seriously address what they are able to fix it. Issues of occupying forces and their conduct raised by others here do have degrees of validity. However, as the point has been made, whether occupying forces are there or not, whether settlements are built or not, the attacks from terrorists within Gaza and elsewhere continue essentially unabated and Hamas' drive continues to be to push the Jews into the sea.

For better or worse, a Palestinian state would give Israel a country against which to declare war and to attack. No more hiding behind women and children. Attacks from a Palestinian state would be considered an act of war.

They will always have the exuse of "we have this armed oraganization, we can't do nothing against, because they are too strong and also because they are our dear brothers, it's them that are making the attacks, not us...
Lebanon style.

. I'm sick to death of every single newscast involving more Israeli-Palestinian nonsense; more killed civilians, more missiles, another incursion, more occupying forces, less occupying forces, another summit that will lead nowhere...
.

It's not because there are more truobles and deaths then in other parts of the world, it's because of dispropotional reporting.

There's no clear-cut, definitive line one crosses in going from terrorist to freedom-fighter to state soldier to ... From my perspective, it is definitely terrorism when a state launches attacks intended to kill civilians. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror attacks. So was the American bombing of Tokyo and Allied attacks on Dresden. So was Hitler's V1 and V2 attacks against London.

When Hamas militants launch missiles indiscriminantly into Israel towns with the express purpose of killing those civilians, I call that terror. Do you?


Saying that some act of political violence is "terrorism" is to say nothing at all, from a moral perspective. Those involved in military conflicts deliberately, knowingly kill civilians in order to achieve military goals.

The morally relevant question is not whether some military organization engages in "terrorism" but whether that organization is fighting and killing for a just cause, as your examples suggest.

This is why naddering about whether so-and-so is a "terrorist" is just so much infantile chatter.

Those involved in military conflicts deliberately, knowingly kill civilians in order to achieve military goals.

Not on purpose, unless they are terrorists. Mai Lai was not a military operation, it was a murderous massacre. Knowingly targeting and killing civilians is not excusable.

The morally relevant question is not whether some military organization engages in "terrorism" but whether that organization is fighting and killing for a just cause, as your examples suggest.

When your Hamas starts engaging military targets instead of civilians sending their kids off to school or enjoying a movie, I think you can then talk about the morals of your heroes.

This is why naddering about whether so-and-so is a "terrorist" is just so much infantile chatter.

Sorry, are you saying that Qasam missile attacks into Israeli cities is not terrorism?

Are you suggesting that a kid blowing himself up in a crowded market is not terrorism?

Just what is terrorism to you?

Not on purpose, unless they are terrorists. Mai Lai was not a military operation, it was a murderous massacre. Knowingly targeting and killing civilians is not excusable.



When your Hamas starts engaging military targets instead of civilians sending their kids off to school or enjoying a movie, I think you can then talk about the morals of your heroes.



Sorry, are you saying that Qasam missile attacks into Israeli cities is not terrorism?

Are you suggesting that a kid blowing himself up in a crowded market is not terrorism?

Just what is terrorism to you?



You are 100% correct.

Until Palestinians take up non-violence like Dr. King and Gandhi did ,they will accomplish nothing except to alienate everyone who ever felt even a modicum of sympathy tword them.

Until Palestinians take up non-violence like Dr. King and Gandhi did ,they will accomplish nothing except to alienate everyone who ever felt even a modicum of sympathy tword them.

You mean if they did so you might even be willing to admit Israel is an occupying force?

Saying that some act of political violence is "terrorism" is to say nothing at all, from a moral perspective. Those involved in military conflicts deliberately, knowingly kill civilians in order to achieve military goals.

The morally relevant question is not whether some military organization engages in "terrorism" but whether that organization is fighting and killing for a just cause, as your examples suggest.

This is why naddering about whether so-and-so is a "terrorist" is just so much infantile chatter.

Interesting that you don't get that "just cause" is more subjective issue then terrorizm. Since everybody think that their cause is just, reaonable people usually agree that there is only one just reason for killing - self-defence.
Of a person, a nation, a group of people, a state and so on.
And only possible argument between reasonable people is what is falling to such category, and what is not. Some cases are clear cut, others are not.
The case of palestinians firing from Gaza on Israel after Israel completely left Gaza is a clear one - not a self-defence.

Sorry, are you saying that Qasam missile attacks into Israeli cities is not terrorism?

Are you suggesting that a kid blowing himself up in a crowded market is not terrorism?

Just what is terrorism to you?

Every millitary action of US or Israel.

However, as the point has been made, whether occupying forces are there or not, whether settlements are built or not, the attacks from terrorists within Gaza and elsewhere continue essentially unabated .

You finally got it. This is something I"m talking about for years now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/70993667@N00/2147873897/

It's always "war" when violence is uniformed, spit-polished and sanctioned by wealthy, powerful nations, and "terrorism" when people under occupation fight back.

It's always "war" when violence is uniformed, spit-polished and sanctioned by wealthy, powerful nations, and "terrorism" when people under occupation fight back.

I understand that you have nothing to say about many points that was brought up in the disscussion...

I understand that you have nothing to say about many points that was brought up in the disscussion...

Is that right? Why don't you check the name of the person who started this thread before making any more asanine comments like this one? Or check some of your own previous posts, obviously written while you were under the influence. Still, drunk or sober, you seldom make any sense whatsoever, so just take your drooling gibberish elsewhere. AA might be a good start. Clearly, you are not up to the task of refuting any argument of mine.

Is that right? Why don't you check the name of the person who started this thread before making any more asanine comments like this one? Or check some of your own previous posts, obviously written while you were under the influence. Still, drunk or sober, you seldom make any sense whatsoever, so just take your drooling gibberish elsewhere. AA might be a good start. Clearly, you are not up to the task of refuting any argument of mine.

And I thought there is a chance for a real discussion with you, even refered to you with a serious question...
My mistake.:rolleyes:

You obviously don't understand that starting a thread is not the same thing as refering to points, that was brought up during the thread, and that personal attacks are not an answers to those points...

Before lecturing me about "personal attacks", you might want to read your previous post. And if you are unable to perform a simple task like reading my previous comments, then I suggest you find a forum more suitable to your "special needs". I make it a rule not to engage in meaningless tit-for-tat with racist morons, that's why I don't address every single point brought up by the most egregious offenders.

How refreshing ... another fashion victim breaks free of the putrid, racist memes of the faux 'Peace Left', and begins to think for himself for a change, instead of merely being led around by virulent antisemites disguised as hippies and 'progressives'.

And as usual, Suzuran does an imitation of the psychotic Guido, and is reduced to babbling 'You're drunk' as their ultimate response when handed their asses yet again about the genocidal murdering vermin they love so dearly.

It's about time for Feenix to step in and warn everybody to lay off his fellow travellers, isn't it?

And I thought there is a chance for a real discussion with you, even refered to you with a serious question...
My mistake.:rolleyes:

You seem to be prone to that, taking these zoo animals seriously, even though these same absurd 'talking points' of theirs were definitively destroyed 30 years ago. It's like responding to holocaust deniers, or Bush Moonies; a pointless waste of intelligence. It's more fun to mock them and let them know exactly where they stand re sanity and intelligence ...

How refreshing ... another fashion victim breaks free of the putrid, racist memes of the faux 'Peace Left', and begins to think for himself for a change, instead of merely being led around by virulent antisemites disguised as hippies and 'progressives'.

And as usual, Suzuran does an imitation of the psychotic Guido, and is reduced to babbling 'You're drunk' as their ultimate response when handed their asses yet again about the genocidal murdering vermin they love so dearly.

It's about time for Feenix to step in and warn everybody to lay off his fellow travellers, isn't it?

And another "rugged individualist" rightwinger runs crying to the nearest authority figure to protect him from the mean little "progressive" chick who whooped his sorry, wet diaper.

And of course that also includes Baruch Goldstein, violent Kahane followers and anybody that supports them, am I right?


Who keeps bringing Kahane up? Guido? LOL ... The Kahanists won one seat in the Knesset, in 1984, and they were banned as a party in 1988. The PLO has more Knesset seats in their worst year than Kahanists ever had. Any fool who keeps bringing up Kahanists is a truly mindless tool of a pathetic loser.

And another "rugged individualist" rightwinger


I'm not even remotely 'right wing' ...

runs crying to the nearest authority figure to protect him

I was referring to Feenix's hobby of protecting Guido, not me, but then you're really not nearly as bright as your sociology professor told you you were ...

from the mean little "progressive" chick who whooped his sorry, wet diaper.

You aren't even close to 'mean', just stupid, and certainly not a 'progressive', unless the meaning of that word has been revised to refer to whiney neurotics with no moral compass at all.

And I suppose the term "vermin", which Hitler popularized to justify ethnic cleansing isn't a racist meme? Or are Arabs, (and Muslims in particular) exempt from the human race and therefore deserving recipients of your own genocidal delusions? If you consider a rock throwing Palestinian child, or even a highly symbolic gesture like a primitive rocket lobbed over an apartheid wall a threat to Israel's existence, then I can only assume you are a moron just like your retarded cracker user name.

And just who's "whining", anyway. I can defend myself, thank you, without crying foul to the moderator, unlike some swastika wielding little klansman I need not name, who hides his pointy white hood behind a fake political stance. And "neurotic"? Now you can add barely concealed misogyny to your long list of deep-rooted psychological problems.

a highly symbolic gesture like a primitive rocket

:nice:
Specially when those rockets are falling on a school yard, lackely empy.


I just can tell you that when you are calling me names - you are wasting your time, since I don't care. Actually I find it rather amusing.
So feel free to go on.

You seem to be prone to that, taking these zoo animals seriously, even though these same absurd 'talking points' of theirs were definitively destroyed 30 years ago. It's like responding to holocaust deniers, or Bush Moonies; a pointless waste of intelligence. It's more fun to mock them and let them know exactly where they stand re sanity and intelligence ...

Sometimes I do find an anti-israeli that worth a good disccussion, sometimes I don't.
One can't telli without trying first, right? ;)

...unlike some swastika wielding little klansman I need not name, who hides his pointy white hood...

Look closely at LPFs avatar. See the "Coca Cola" written in it? Check out where that comes from:

http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika2.html

http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/cocacola.gif

I too used to be put off by his avatar until LPF explained it's hilarious origins. Read this:

http://www.ubersite.com/m/26514

Too bad the "Coca Cola" isn't very clear in the image...

Sometimes I do find an anti-israeli that worth a good disccussion, sometimes I don't.
One can't telli without trying first, right? ;)

Are you sure you really needed that last six pack of Schlitz?

Is violence a legitimate means of resisting military occupation, politicide and territorial dispossession?

Depends on the situation. Do you support the violence towards the British in Palestine by the Jews before 1948, you know, it was also to resist a military occupation. Do you believe that the violence of Jewish people against the occupying British was legitimate and justified?:confused:

Not really. Unlike you, I don't let worthless governments do my thinking for me.

But it seems like EVERYBODY, both liberal democracies and even some Arab dictatorships (who have no use for Israel whatsoever) still agree that Hamas are terrorists. Are they just "Zionists" who want the palestinians to be oppressed and believe that they should not violently resist "occupation"? I don't think so. The problem is not only Jews and Israel. Even if they disappeared alltogether right now, Hamas would still be terrorists, and they would find new victims, no matter if it's in Jordan or America. I know you think that the reason Hamas are violent barbaric terrorists is only because of the Jews, but guess what, they're not, and even half of Israel's enemies would probably agree on that.

In reality, I honestly don't care about any of them except for the fact that trains blow up in Europe and buildings fall in NA and it's all tied back to this fetid cesspool of religious fervor and strife. I wish the world would build a giant sarcophagus around the ME and open it in five hundred years to see if the people -- if there are any left -- had learned to live together without seeking day and night to gouge each other's eyes out. I wish there was a moratorium on news from that part of the world. I'm sick to death of every single newscast involving more Israeli-Palestinian nonsense; more killed civilians, more missiles, another incursion, more occupying forces, less occupying forces, another summit that will lead nowhere...

I did have a measure of sympathy for the Palestinians until they chose Hamas to lead them. I'm not the only one. The AP wrote

"Islamic militant Hamas' landslide victory in Palestinian elections unnerved the world Thursday, darkening prospects for Mideast peace and ending four decades of rule by the corruption-riddled Fatah Party." (1)

Faced with corruption on the one hand and a terrorist outfit on the other, the people chose terror. On that day, they made a covenant with the devil, so to speak. They can lie in that bed they've made.

This doesn't let Israel off the proverbial hook. They too need to recognize all factors leading to why Palestinians chose this path and seriously address what they are able to fix it. Issues of occupying forces and their conduct raised by others here do have degrees of validity. However, as the point has been made, whether occupying forces are there or not, whether settlements are built or not, the attacks from terrorists within Gaza and elsewhere continue essentially unabated and Hamas' drive continues to be to push the Jews into the sea.
__________________

Very good points.

Saying that some act of political violence is "terrorism" is to say nothing at all, from a moral perspective. Those involved in military conflicts deliberately, knowingly kill civilians in order to achieve military goals.

The morally relevant question is not whether some military organization engages in "terrorism" but whether that organization is fighting and killing for a just cause, as your examples suggest.

This is why naddering about whether so-and-so is a "terrorist" is just so much infantile chatter.
__________________

Israeli right-wing extremists would agree with you too. Do you approve of Baruch Goldstein's political violence towards the palestinians, because he believed that they are occupying his land and to him it was a just cause?:confused: Hey, at least he didn't target or kill any women, same can't be said about Hamas:p.

If we're gonna play the "terrorist is a freedom fighter game", I can easily justify the actions of the few violent Jewish settlers who feel that way about killing Palestinians (to them, they are on THEIR land, as much as the palestinians feel about them vice versa), and since it's a religious conflict and nobody can objectively say "It's my land", there are no "wrongs" or "rights" if you're gonna look at it from this point of view. Both sides claim it as their land and both sides have religious arguements for that, and both have equal right to use violence against each other.

Originally Posted by Truth Teller
Until Palestinians take up non-violence like Dr. King and Gandhi did ,they will accomplish nothing except to alienate everyone who ever felt even a modicum of sympathy tword them.

You mean if they did so you might even be willing to admit Israel is an occupying force?

Who gives a sh!t what TT or anybody else would "admit". His point was that if the palestinians took up non-violence, they will get their state and more people would have sympathy for their cause. However, with the way they behave, even if one DOES believe that Israel is an "occupying force", he/she will still not support the palestinians just because of their behavior alone.

It's always "war" when violence is uniformed, spit-polished and sanctioned by wealthy, powerful nations, and "terrorism" when people under occupation fight back.

I agree, just like they accuse early Zionist leaders of terrorism towards the British, what the hell were they even thinking:p.

And never forget that Baruch Goldstein is also a "freedom fighter" by your definition, since he tried to liberate Jewish land (as he would claim it to be from religious reasons) from Arab occupation and fight back Arab violence towards helpless Jewish people.

How refreshing ... another fashion victim breaks free of the putrid, racist memes of the faux 'Peace Left', and begins to think for himself for a change, instead of merely being led around by virulent antisemites disguised as hippies and 'progressives'.

And as usual, Suzuran does an imitation of the psychotic Guido, and is reduced to babbling 'You're drunk' as their ultimate response when handed their asses yet again about the genocidal murdering vermin they love so dearly.

It's about time for Feenix to step in and warn everybody to lay off his fellow travellers, isn't it?

:nice:

Who keeps bringing Kahane up? Guido? LOL ... The Kahanists won one seat in the Knesset, in 1984, and they were banned as a party in 1988. The PLO has more Knesset seats in their worst year than Kahanists ever had. Any fool who keeps bringing up Kahanists is a truly mindless tool of a pathetic loser.


THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! Everybody makes a big deal of them and the settlers, while in reality, the PLO wins at least 10 seats in the Knesset, while Kahanists are either banned or don't get more than 1.

The next time Guido says anything about Israel supporting Jewish settlers, ask him exactly HOW, when the Knesset has more people who represent PLO than those who represent the settlement movement:p.

Of course, that's where I critisize Israel a lot, and I don't understand how they let PLO terrorists be Knesset members, as opposed to sending them to jail, but that's another topic.

And I suppose the term "vermin", which Hitler popularized to justify ethnic cleansing isn't a racist meme?

Oh, Hitler LOVED Arabs and considered them as "white" (although they are of the same race as the Jews:rolleyes:). Just ask Nasser or any other North-African Arab dictator. Even the "peaceful and moderate" Anwar Sadaat (who ironically was part Black by race) was a big fan of Hitler and wrote essays about how he admires Hitler and his commitment to white people and white civilization.

Or are Arabs, (and Muslims in particular) exempt from the human race and therefore deserving recipients of your own genocidal delusions?

Hey, guess what?? "Muslims" are not a "race", but a religion. ANYBODY can become Muslim and NOBODY is born Muslim. It's a CHOICE of religion. Therefore, I can theoretically hate ALL Muslims, and still not be a racist, because Muslims come from ALL races and ALL races include Muslim and non-Muslim people.

If he "hates" Arabs because of their race, then he must also hate Jews too:p. Of course, he may not like the culture in Arab world, but it doesn't mean he hates Arabs because they are brown or semetic:rolleyes:.

Israeli Jews from N. African and Asian countries look very much like Arabs...does he hate them too?:confused:

If you consider a rock throwing Palestinian child, or even a highly symbolic gesture like a primitive rocket lobbed over an apartheid wall a threat to Israel's existence, then I can only assume you are a moron just like your retarded cracker user name.

And what makes you think that rich white people like you have any business telling the Jews about a "threat to their existence"?:confused: Last time they listened to you guys, ,they lost 6 millions:rolleyes:.

And what makes you think that rich white people like you have any business telling the Jews about a "threat to their existence"?:confused: Last time they listened to you guys, ,they lost 6 millions:rolleyes:.[/QUOTE]

"Good Germans" also believed that their "pristine" way of life was under attack by a swarthy sub-sect of humanity bent on their destruction. Sound familiar? Surely, even you are aware of the irony of advocating a system of separation and inequality based on one's ethnicity and religious beliefs.

But it seems like EVERYBODY, both liberal democracies and even some Arab dictatorships (who have no use for Israel whatsoever) still agree that Hamas are terrorists.

So what? What exactly follows from Hamas being "terrorists"?

Am I supposed to gasp and hyperventilate, and join in the "war on terrorism" (which doesn't really exist), or suddenly think it's OK for Israel steal land in the occupied territories in order to establish jewish soveriegnty at the expense of the natives?

The relevant, difficult and interesting (one might say, the serious) question (which requires one to engage in moral reasoning, as opposed to empty moralism) is not whether Hamas (or Hezbollah, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, etc.) are "terrorists" but whether in any particular circumstance, Hamas' terrorism is justified.

The relevant, difficult and interesting (one might say, the serious) question (which requires one to engage in moral reasoning, as opposed to empty moralism) is not whether Hamas (or Hezbollah, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, etc.) are "terrorists" but whether in any particular circumstance, Hamas' terrorism is justified.

Why is it acceptable for Hamas, in the name of the Palestinian people, to kill innocent civilians?



Suzuran, for your information, coral100cor is not a native English speaker.

Why is it acceptable for Hamas, in the name of the Palestinian people, to kill innocent civilians?

I did not say that it is acceptable. However, since the Israeli army kills many times more innocent civilians than does Hamas, and is actively engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing, two consequences follow:

(1) supporters of Israel have no principled moral basis for judging Hamas' tactics; and (2) given the fact that Palestinians are under immanent threat of extinction, collectively and individually (ignoring lesser threats such as dispossession, expulsion, etc.), and have no access to weapons, money or technology to counteract that given to Israel by American taxpayers like me, they may have little or no choice among available tactics.

My point is that serious moral analysis of the situation does not end with the characterization of Hamas as "terrorist." It would be more accurate to say that this is where the analysis begins.

However, very few people, especially Americans (or Canadians), have anything like the requisite intellectual integrity and courage to engage in moral analysis, which is why they are content to cite official government classifications of groups like Hamas as if that provided an adequate substitute for genuine thought.

Suzuran, for your information, coral100cor is not a native English speaker.

I suppose it's an attempt to defend me, it's nice :), thank you, but no need.
His real problem with me is not my english, but the fact that I'm israeli, pro-israeli, and that he has no aswer to my points, just like he has no answer to other people points, and I have a suspicion that sometimes he is not capable to understand them. And not because of my english!

I dispossession, expulsion, etc.), and have no access to weapons, money or technology to counteract that given to Israel by American taxpayers like me, they may have little or no choice among available tactics.



Another "palestinians kill innocent civilians because they don't have heavy weapon - give then heavy weapon and they will stop killing innocent civilians" argument. That's wierd idea is an old one.

"Money" - is another old argument. I thought that till now everybody know that palestinians are given plenty of money.

Not on purpose, unless they are terrorists. Mai Lai was not a military operation, it was a murderous massacre. Knowingly targeting and killing civilians is not excusable.

Actually, knowingly targeting and killing civilians is excusable, because as a matter of fact, it is routinely excused in warfare and always has been. If you don't know that, you aren't qualified to talk about this subject at all.

Also, just so you know, being a "military operation" is not incompatible with being a "murderous massacre" -- unless your knowledge of war is based on political speechs and B-movies, as your knowledge surely is.

We know for a fact that the USA has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, and continues to do so on a daily basis. We don't know how many, however, because we don't care enough to count the corpses.

And we know for a fact that Israel kills innocent civilians in Palestine at about 4 times the rate of the "terrorists," and 5 times the rate when it comes to killing kids. Apparently it does this in order to make it safe for a bunch of spoiled jerkoffs from Brooklyn to live in subsidized condos and villas on land that is not part of Israel, and which are built on the rubble of destroyed Palestinian villages.

Let's be real generous and assume that in most cases, the civilians aren't the primary target. But the killings aren't accidental either. They are "collateral damage." "Collateral" means secondary. Well, to what were the civilian losses secondary or subordinate? Why, to the military ones. Does that mean the losses accidental or unintended? No.

It may be an accident that any particular child is maimed, but far from purely accidental that children are maimed. Compare:

1. I am the US or Israeli military. I want to bomb a military target located where there are lots of civilians, and I do, killing 40 civilians in the process. This is collateral damage, and it happens all the time (whether or not it's reported in the pro-government media). I didn't "intend" to kill the 40, but I didn't try too hard to avoid it either. It was a price worth paying, and I have a PR guy who goes on TV and says:

"It was inevitable there would be regrettable civilian losses. Our forces made every effort to minimize innocent casualties, often to the point of putting their own lives at risk."

2. I am Hamas. I want to let Israel know that there is a horrible price to pay for refusing to end military rule, for stealing more land, for destroying more homes, for dispossessing more people. So I blow up a bomb where there are lots of civilians, killing 10 of them in the process. This is terrorism.

There is no significant moral distinction between the killing involved in (1) and (2), except that in (1), 4 times are many innocents are killed. Not that much moral weight hangs on the slender thread of "good intentions," at least not in the judeo-christian tradition, and certainly it makes no difference at all from a legal perspective.

But we in the enlightened "West" not only tolerate (1), but we support and finance it on a daily basis, for reasons that are so vague they cannot even be explained to us by our leaders.

The crucial point about collateral damage is not that it mutilates children and is therefore wrong; it's that it mutilates children and may at times be right. There really isn't any question about this. Even if every war the US has fought since 1945 was wrong, we can easily conceive of wars that are right, or at least in which we were right to participate. Most of us think that such wars have actually occurred. And such wars involve just the sort of collateral damage we're talking about.

This is why there can't be any serious issue about justifying terrorism. Yes, it sometimes mutilates children for political purposes. This is clearly wrong if done in an obviously bad cause, or for very stupid reasons. But otherwise it can certainly be OK.

In our system of morality -- the one we practice, not the one we preach -- it is the reasons for mutiliating kids that determines the moral status of the mutilation, not the act itself.

Another "palestinians kill innocent civilians because they don't have heavy weapon - give then heavy weapon and they will stop killing innocent civilians" argument. That's wierd idea is an old one.

If Palestinians had the same weapons the Israelis use against them, they might succeed in killing as many innocent civilians as Israel actually kills - about 4 times as many.

If Palestinians had the same weapons the Israelis use against them, they might succeed in killing as many innocent civilians as Israel actually kills - about 4 times as many.



If palestinians would have the weapons Israel does, they would have the very aim they have now - which is - killing as many civilians as possible.

I don't believe in your tesis that heavy weapon is what making people to give up terror.

2. I am Hamas. I want to let Israel know that there is a horrible price to pay for refusing to end military rule, for stealing more land, for destroying more homes, for dispossessing more people. So I blow up a bomb where there are lots of civilians, killing 10 of them in the process. This is terrorism.



Let's say that Israel does what you are accusing it in doing. Mostly bull, but O.K.' for the matter of example.
So that's all Hamas want? Are you sure they don't want to destroy Israel? Are you sure they lie when they say so?

And why Hamas kill only ten?
Because they don't like killing innocent civilians, or because israeli security measures prevent them from killing 2000?

Actually, knowingly targeting and killing civilians is excusable, because as a matter of fact, it is routinely excused in warfare and always has been. If you don't know that, you aren't qualified to talk about this subject at all.

Actually, it's not. The Fourth Geneva Convention is pretty clear about how civilized nations prosecute war with respect to civilians. I suppose a wannabe tough-guy internet thug who doesn't actually have to answer to any authority because he lives in an insulated, consequence-free la-la land of soda-stained T-shirts and potato chip crumbs and LCD monitors and his trusty keyboard "weapon", who has the luxury of playing the theoretical games, role-playing the tough without actually having to issue an order or pull the trigger and deal with the consequences can hold such a looney position. But out in the real world soldiers that intentionally target civilians are war criminals. Why don't you enlist, solider, and go massacre a village of Iraqis? Let us know how that works out for you.

Also, just so you know, being a "military operation" is not incompatible with being a "murderous massacre" -- unless your knowledge of war is based on political speechs and B-movies, as your knowledge surely is.

So in your opinion Mai Lai was not a "murderous massacre" but rather a well-planned, well-executed military operation?

We know for a fact that the USA has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, and continues to do so on a daily basis. We don't know how many, however, because we don't care enough to count the corpses.

Correction, you don't care to count the corpses.

1. I am the US or Israeli military. I want to bomb a military target located where there are lots of civilians, and I do, killing 40 civilians in the process. This is collateral damage, and it happens all the time (whether or not it's reported in the pro-government media). I didn't "intend" to kill the 40, but I didn't try too hard to avoid it either. It was a price worth paying, and I have a PR guy who goes on TV and says:

"It was inevitable there would be regrettable civilian losses. Our forces made every effort to minimize innocent casualties, often to the point of putting their own lives at risk."

2. I am Hamas. I want to let Israel know that there is a horrible price to pay for refusing to end military rule, for stealing more land, for destroying more homes, for dispossessing more people. So I blow up a bomb where there are lots of civilians, killing 10 of them in the process. This is terrorism.

...

The crucial point about collateral damage is not that it mutilates children and is therefore wrong; it's that it mutilates children and may at times be right. There really isn't any question about this. Even if every war the US has fought since 1945 was wrong, we can easily conceive of wars that are right, or at least in which we were right to participate. Most of us think that such wars have actually occurred. And such wars involve just the sort of collateral damage we're talking about.

Then you're in no position to criticize the Israelis. They're at war with Islamic extremists bent on destroying not just the state of Israel but every Jew in it. You yourself said "knowingly targeting and killing civilians is excusable" in war. You said the crucial point is that "it mutilates children and may at times be right". Given what you've said, what is wrong -- in your "learned" opinion -- with the Israelis collecting 40 dead to get one guy?

Surely if it's okay for Hamas to target cafes and pizza parlors and movie houses -- and it is according to you -- then why isn't it okay for Israel to return in kind? If there are no rules in war regarding civilians then why are you complaining at all about what Israel does in its war against this extremism?

The crucial point is that Israel does not intentionally target civilians in its military operations against the terrorists launching missiles at it. The same cannot be said of the terrorists they fight. If you cannot see the moral difference, you're either fighting for Hamas, you're being obtuse for the sake of argument or you're beyond help.

This is why there can't be any serious issue about justifying terrorism. Yes, it sometimes mutilates children for political purposes. This is clearly wrong if done in an obviously bad cause, or for very stupid reasons. But otherwise it can certainly be OK.

Wow. This is signature worthy material.

So who defines an "obviously bad cause" or what constitute "very stupid reasons"?

In our system of morality -- the one we practice, not the one we preach -- it is the reasons for mutiliating kids that determines the moral status of the mutilation, not the act itself.

Ah, so as long as you think it's okay, it is? You've just excused Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler and Hussein and the 19 guys that changed the world on 9/11. I'm sure these guys all thought their reasons were sound enough and could probably even defend them in a debate to some degree.

There is nothing that is off the table to you as long as one can justify to oneself that the benefits outweigh the consequences. They don't have to of course, you just have to be convinced in your little fantasy world.


Sure, Hamas could launch missiles and send suicide bombers to blow markets up or it could negotiate in good faith in multi-lateral talks with their "enemy" and other, neutral parties to improve the socioeconomic stead of its people and to perhaps even have the occupying forces leave when enough stability and rule of law is reached that such measures are no longer needed.

There are two possible paths that could be followed here and they choose the one that invariably results in the greatest number of civilian casualties on both sides. I know that this meshes perfectly with the Hamas charter and reason for being -- and it's why everyone in the world (except you) considers them to be a terrorist outfit to this day -- but it's a mystery to me why it's an acceptable path to you. Are you a member of Hamas? Are you seeing things through the eyes of what the ignorant infidels in the West calls a "terrorist"? Are you a "freedom fighter" with this group?

Given the eye-opening things you've stated, it is still not clear to me how you can have a problem with anything that the Israelis do. If they think 40:1 is a reasonable, acceptable ratio then who are you, with your avowed position, to question them, especially when it seems that the tactic of purposely targeting civilians is perfectly acceptable to you? :eek7:

English teachers... :rolleyes:

I did not say that it is acceptable.

Perhaps you did not, explicitly. It's clear where your sympathies lie:

(1) supporters of Israel have no principled moral basis for judging Hamas' tactics; and (2) given the fact that Palestinians are under immanent sic threat of extinction, collectively and individually (ignoring lesser threats such as dispossession, expulsion, etc.), and have no access to weapons, money or technology to counteract that given to Israel by American taxpayers like me, they may have little or no choice among available tactics.

One might infer by the above bolded statement that you implicitly condone their "tactics". Let me clear here- I do not condone Israel's tactics.

By the way, an occupied people has no duty, moral or legal, to "strive to cooperate with their neighbors" who happen to be the occupiers, "eschew inflammatory rhetoric" or any of the other idiotic bromides advanced in your previous post.

Their occupation absolves them from morality? Let me be clear here, as I believe few have been: "them", as I see it, includes those Palestinians who support Hamas, and who engage in attacks against innocent civilians.

However, very few people, especially Americans (or Canadians), have anything like the requisite intellectual integrity and courage to engage in moral analysis, which is why they are content to cite official government classifications of groups like Hamas as if that provided an adequate substitute for genuine thought.

I encourage you to get out of the "northeast", and meet some Americans. Or is your analysis based solely on what you read in those publications that meet your standards of genuine thought.

Goodness, your attitude is off-putting.


The morally relevant question is not whether some military organization engages in "terrorism" but whether that organization is fighting and killing for a just cause, as your examples suggest.

Here again your statement implies that terrorism is justified in the case of the Palestinians.

The relevant, difficult and interesting (one might say, the serious) question (which requires one to engage in moral reasoning, as opposed to empty moralism) is not whether Hamas (or Hezbollah, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, etc.) are "terrorists" but whether in any particular circumstance, Hamas' terrorism is justified.

And here again your statement implies that terrorism is justified in the case of the Palestinians.

Had you any interest in engaging Kanuckistang in discussion about this topic, you would see that he has a nuanced position. Instead, you launched into your typical, cynical, pendantic rhetoric that is the hallmark of one backed against a wall on a topic which one has invested too much personally (for whatever reason).

You see, I believe that the killing of innocents is wrong, full stop. You seem not to agree with this. Indeed, you seem to think that because one (or a "people") are victimized, they relinquish their obligation to behave morally.

Do the Israelis behave immorally when they kill innocents? Do the Palestinians? The answer to both of these questions is obvious: Yes.

English teachers... :rolleyes:

Or more specifically, academics...

Goodness, your attitude is off-putting.

Reminds me of someone else here...

Do the Israelis behave immorally when they kill innocents? Do the Palestinians? The answer to both of these questions is obvious: Yes.

To you and I, yes. To Guido ... not so fast. To him, the slaughter of civilians is a perfectly acceptable tactic and one only needs to convince himself that such slaughter is justified. Given that, I cannot see how he can take sides in this conflict. He may support Hamas and its anything-goes tactics in its struggle against the oppressive IDF but he cannot logically be against what Israel does in return.

We all know that Israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians when it goes after those responsible for suicide bombings and missile attacks. It is a central tenet of the IDF code of moral war conduct is that every effort be undertaken avoid involving and harming civilians. This is morally diametrically opposed to the "other" position of intentionally targeting non-combatants to achieve political goals, the essential and code definition of terrorism.

Indeed, in the recent Hezbollah/Israel conflict, Israeli air force pilots intentionally "missed" targets because they believed the intel was flawed and that the targets were not Hezbollah but were instead civilian:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1838437,00.html

I wonder if guido can provide a link showing Hamas intentionally calling off an attack because civilians may be harmed?

We all know that Israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians when it goes after those responsible for suicide bombings and missile attacks. It is a central tenet of the IDF code of moral war conduct is that every effort be undertaken avoid involving and harming civilians. This is morally diametrically opposed to the "other" position of intentionally targeting non-combatants to achieve political goals, the essential and code definition of terrorism.

I have already pointed out, as anyone with any exposure to the basic texts of western moral philosophy ought to know, that "intentions" do not determine the moral character of actions. But aside from that, your astonishing, inexcusable, but apparently genuine naivete regarding the realities of violent conflict cries out for correction, for instance by Chris Hedges reporting from Gaza, published in Harpers 2001:

I sit in the shade of a palm-roofed hut on the edge of the dunes, momentarily defeated by the heat, the grit, the jostling crowds, the stench of the open sewers and rotting garbage. A friend of Azmi's brings me, on a tray, a cold glass of tart, red carcade juice.

Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias—homespun robes—smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels.

It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker.

"Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!"

I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: "Son of a bitch!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's cunt!"

The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come.

A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.

http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/011001_hedges.html

"Good Germans" also believed that their "pristine" way of life was under attack by a swarthy sub-sect of humanity bent on their destruction. Sound familiar?

Yes it does, I've lost about half of my family to Nazis, basically:rolleyes:. That's why people like me are not gonna let the Arabs finish the job either.

Surely, even you are aware of the irony of advocating a system of separation and inequality based on one's ethnicity and religious beliefs.

Israel does not want to kill Arabs or destroy their religoius beliefs. If only Hitler's biggest crime was "separation" between Jews and non-Jews or even kicking all Jews out from Germany. If only the Holocaust was THAT simple:rolleyes:.

All Israel is asking is for Arab Muslims around them to leave them alone and let them leave in peace within their own country and community.

So what? What exactly follows from Hamas being "terrorists"?

That they are not terrorists only because Israeli soldiers are on the 1967 land and they have ho choice by fighting.

Obviously when they were murdering innocent people in Jordan and Lebanon, it wasn't because of "Israeli occupation". They were killing people who had no problem with their fight against Israel.

They directly said that EVEN if Israrel left the 1967 land, they would still not recognize Israel and continue fighting until EVERY INCH of the original Palestine is Islamic.

THEY said it, not me. If even the leaders and members of Hamas DIRECTLY say that they won't stop with ending the so-called occupation, and support violence against MANY OTHER groups besides Israelis that "occupy" them, who are you to tell us anything different?:confused:

Am I supposed to gasp and hyperventilate, and join in the "war on terrorism" (which doesn't really exist), or suddenly think it's OK for Israel steal land in the occupied territories in order to establish jewish soveriegnty at the expense of the natives?

To answer your question, you can be against Israel's actions on 1967 land and support Palestinian state, and STILL oppose Hamas and their terrorism.

You don't have to be a huge Zionist or support "occupation" in order to oppose the mass murder of innocent people.

The relevant, difficult and interesting (one might say, the serious) question (which requires one to engage in moral reasoning, as opposed to empty moralism) is not whether Hamas (or Hezbollah, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, etc.) are "terrorists" but whether in any particular circumstance, Hamas' terrorism is justified.

After fighting each other for a hundred years, you can "justify" ANYTHING. You can "justify" palestinian terrorism, while I can justify the occasional violence from Israeli settlers or soldiers. "He started first"..."we were here first"..."this is OUR religious land"...we can go on and on.

The REAL question (that you don't wanna think about) is WHAT GOOD does it do for them to commit terrorism? Did it help the Palestinians? Did it end the "occupation"? Did it push the Jews into the sea? Did it help the palestinians gain support around the world? Does anybody even give a sh!t about them now, including many Arab countries and former anti-zionists?
What have they accomplished with their terrorism other than the greatest mass murder of Jews since Hitler, and the loss of support for their cause around the world?:confused:

Ignorant anti-zionists like you are only helping the right-wing extremists in Israeli politics, because as long as the palestinians are listening to you and Iran, their support around the world (including even Arab countries) is going down, and when Israel finaly has enough and actually DOES something bad to them, there will be no one to defend the palestinians, and not only they will not get a state but they actually will be in MAJOR danger. We all know that Israel is playing children games with them right now, and has every bit of the ability to destroy and expell them as soon as the tolerance of Israeli people reaches the limit, and the world will be so fed up with hamas terrorists that it will give Israel a blind eye to do whatever.

We all know that Israel does not intentionally target innocent civilians when it goes after those responsible for suicide bombings and missile attacks. It is a central tenet of the IDF code of moral war conduct is that every effort be undertaken avoid involving and harming civilians. This is morally diametrically opposed to the "other" position of intentionally targeting non-combatants to achieve political goals, the essential and code definition of terrorism.

Actually, we all don't know that.

B’Tselem, “Trigger-Happy: Unjustified Shooting and Violation of the Open Fire Regulations” (http://www.btselem.org/Download/200203_Trigger_Happy_Eng.rtf):

A conscript soldier who gave testimony to B’Tselem told of a procedure in a particular area of the West Bank during which IDF jeeps were sent as a provocation to areas of friction with Palestinians in order to serve as bait for throwers of stones and petrol bombs. When the latter would approach, the soldiers, who had taken up position in advance at other points, would shoot at them. The stated goal of this procedure was to distance the demonstrations from other sites, but in fact, stated the soldier, “It became a kind of sport, to “knock down” as many “fire-bombers” as possible. It was an obsessive search. It’s called ‘strive to make contact.’ What bothers me is had the jeeps not have entered, there would have been no disturbances of the peace.”

October.19.2004 Killing children is no longer a big deal by Gideon Levy
http://www.jerusalemites.org/articles/english/oct2004/19.htm

More than 30 Palestinian children were killed in the first two weeks of Operation Days of Penitence in the Gaza Strip. It's no wonder that many people term such wholesale killing of children "terror." Whereas in the overall count of all the victims of the intifada the ratio is three Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed, when it comes to children the ratio is 5:1. According to B'Tselem, the human rights organization, even before the current operation in Gaza, 557 Palestinian minors (below the age of 18) were killed, compared to 110 Israeli minors.

Palestinian human rights groups speak of even higher numbers: 598 Palestinian children killed (up to age 17), according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, and 828 killed (up to age 18) according to the Red Crescent. Take note of the ages, too. According to B'Tselem, whose data are updated until about a month ago, 42 of the children who have been killed were 10; 20 were seven; and eight were two years old when they died. The youngest victims are 13 newborn infants who died at checkpoints during birth.

The plain fact, which must be stated clearly, is that the blood of hundreds of Palestinian children is on our hands. No tortuous explanation by the IDF Spokesman's Office or by the military correspondents about the dangers posed to soldiers by the children, and no dubious excuse by the public relations people in the Foreign Ministry about how the Palestinians are making use of children will change that fact. An army that kills so many children is an army with no restraints, an army that has lost its moral code.

As MK Ahmed Tibi (Hadash) said, in a particularly emotional speech in the Knesset, it is no longer possible to claim that all these children were killed by mistake. An army doesn't make more than 500 day-to-day mistakes of identity. No, this is not a mistake but the disastrous result of a policy driven mainly by an appallingly light trigger finger and by the dehumanization of the Palestinians. Shooting at everything that moves, including children, has become normative behavior. Even the momentary mini-furor that erupted over the "confirming of the killing" of a 13-year-old girl, Iman Alhamas, did not revolve around the true question. The scandal should have been generated by the very act of the killing itself, not only by what followed.

At least in some of these cases it was clear to the soldiers that they were shooting at children, but that didn't stop them. Palestinian children have no refuge: mortal danger lurks for them in their homes, in their schools and on their streets. Not one of the hundreds of children who have been killed deserved to die, and the responsibility for their killing cannot remain anonymous. Thus the message is conveyed to the soldiers: it's no tragedy to kill children and none of you is guilty.

I'm not going to disagree that there have been isolated incidents of atrocities by members of the IDF. My point is that it is not the policy of the IDF nor of the Israeli government and most likely not, in fact, of the Israeli populace, to intentionally and criminally attack civilians. What are these "Open Fire Regulations" mentioned in that link of yours? Surely if it were the policy of the IDF and of Israel as a whole to intentionally target civilians there would be no such regulations...right?

Would that you could show that Hamas has the same ethos. But you cannot. It is not the policy of the IDF to hurt civilians. It is the stated intent, the raison d'etre of Hamas' entire being to wipe Israel off the map, to wipe out Jews, to push them into the sea and spill their blood. You're insane to equate the actions of a few rogue, criminal IDF soldiers violating IDF rules with the stated policy of the Palestinian leadership.

Mai Lai was a black mark in US history but is was not damning evidence proving the US military, government and civilian population are terrorists. The perpetrators were war criminals of the worst type, yes, but it would be the height of stupidity to suggest that this event, or of alleged US Marine atrocities in the Iraq city of Hamdania proves unequivocably that the US as a whole is in the same league as, say, Hamas.

Why doesn't Hamas fight the IDF occupiers? Why do they instead target women and children? Why do they hide behind their own civilians, putting them at risk? Why do they fire their missiles from crowded city centres? Where is their concern for their women and children?

You're not even trying anymore. You're not answering specific points and not answering direct questions. You're simply flailing, your position is morally bankrupt and your logic is twisted and grotesque. Give it up guido, you're looking more and more the total ass here.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, crying "anti-semitism" in an attempt to repel inconvenient facts no longer works like it used to. Most people recognize this absurd and spurious accusation for the cynical ploy it is, and are no longer falsely shamed into silence for fear of being branded with that once dreaded label. Like "terror", the term is meant to be imbued with mystical, willfully ill-defined properties that transcend its basic linguistic function. In the Harry Potter novels, wizard folk shunned the mere mention of "Valdemort", fearing that they could tempt fate simply by naming the unnameable. Eventually, they were able to overcome superstition, recognizing that their dreaded nemesis was empowered in part by their own fears, and an unwillingness to confront reality. Similarly, more and more Americans have snapped out of their media-induced delusions, and are able to see through the smoke and mirrors deliberately placed in front of them by stooge spinmeisters like yourself.

Sadly for you, Israel's bad faith policies, its contemptuous disregard for International law, its abyssmal human rights record, its hypocritical claims to democracy, and its powerful lobbies funded by American taxpayers to perpetuate a constant stream of misinformation stands in glaring contrast to the image it projects as a beleaguered and helpless nation, defending itself from stealth enemies bent on its destruction. For this reason, you have to resort to emotional blackmail, claiming a personal (and conveniently unverifiable) connection to the Holocaust as a desperate, last ditch attempt to bolster your non-argument. Unfortunately, a forum of this kind, (where our anonymity demands a more rigorous intellectual accountability) can only deal with facts - something you have yet to provide. The topic of this thread (if I remember correctly) are the real objectives behind the 'two state solution' as put forward by those who advocate a permanent, legally sanctioned apartheid solution to Israel's disputed borders, and its illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Until you are able and willing to offer something more substantive than poorly lobbed, emotional hand grenades to back up your arguments, nothing you say here is of any interest or value.

...In other words, no one here will be convinced otherwise.
The only response to TT's suggestion re: Ghandi was most curious. The one thing that would make the issue crystal clear to those of us so far away from the conflict, and it is given a left-handed brush off by one of the pro-Israeli's and ignored entirely by the Pro-Palestinian side of the debate. (Hint for Pro-Palestinians: any violent action and reaction involving Israel usually favors Israel in the press and public opinion. It is stupid and shallow, but it is also a practical truth observed in Europe and the US).

Most curious indeed. Peaceful resistance and Israeli reaction to that would likely resolve the conflict much faster than the decades' long "bad neighbors" war. The Palestinians are entrenched in Israeli's economy and by extension the rest of their society. They could exert as much leverage and have similar impact as Ghandi