Yes I do agree and I did say that in my post. I am not condoning these actions although I do understand them. 

I recently had a discussion with a friend over this conflict. Here's what I gave him as my overall opinion (please understand that this is a very short & incomplete version of the whole situation)
The Palestinians fight for years for a state of their own. They get it, or at least part of it. Within a short period of time, their "elites" manage to justify the existence of two antagonistic regimes. One determines that they will not stand in the way of their "fighters" wanting to shoot rockets in to Israel. Israel retaliates, knowing full well that these "fighters" will not be stopped by a simple "eye for an eye" exchange in deaths & damages.
In other words, the Palestinian states should first of all understand that any attack is going to draw retribution. Second, that once a truce is hopefully established, and we ALL dream of a permanent peace in the region, the two Palestinian states should decide whether their personal ambitions, hatreds, and points of view are worth endangering the very thing that they fought for all these years. Hamas & the Palestinian Authority MUST find a way to agree on becoming one. And they must come to see that the Israelis will never give up the existence of their nation. As for anyone that truly believes that this is not an important point, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable with having your neighbour say he'll observe a "peace" but still wants to wipe you from the face of the earth
So the Palestinians MUST revert to peaceful means to build up their own country, and accept that this blind & foolish idea that they will eventually destroy Israel would also mean the destruction of their nation. The problem is that there is no Palestinian leader willing to risk his life to say so (see Yitzhak Rabin) & publicly fight for it.

Tit for tat is a vicious circle, and blame can be apportioned easily by both sides & their supporters.
Death, on the other hand, will continue until one side says revenge has not proven to be the solution, ever.

Signing an anti-Israel petition just puts their supporters' back up. Why not start a petition urging BOTH sides (in this case the three sides - Israel, and the two Palestinian administrations) to STOP their attacks. Period. Expecting Israel to stop unilaterally is a bit much. They have seen what has been needed in the past to stop rocket attacks. And that has always meant inflicting such damage that exceeds that done by the other side. I.E. if you keep shooting at me with a .22 rifle, if I have to shoot guided missiles at you to get you to stop, am I really wrong and are you really that desperate to believe that I would not retaliate with what I knew to be necessary to have you consider your attack as insane. And expecting Hamas to stop the "rocket launching brigades" is known to be an internal affair.
And they must know the response that such attacks will bring.

So everyone sit down, take a valium and push for the obvious - a regional conference that includes ALL the players. That means the world's major powers, the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, and the EU, China. Then Israel and the Palestinian players, Hamas, the PA, and the third palestinian armed group whose name escapes me, but that I saw included in discussion between Hamas and the PA. Include Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Have the U.S. hold their nose and accept Iran's presence. Syria must be there also.

Then have the God of Abraham, Moses and Mohamed show up and tell them that  if they can't come to terms to stop this once and for all, that he/she will wipe them all out and save them the trouble & time.

For our choosing sides will only encourage one side or the other.

Edited by debrewguy - January 15 2009 at 11:13

manofmystery wrote: Is there somewhere I can sign up in support of Israel's actions?  Always lovely to see so many people played for saps by the palestinian use of the media.  Those Israeli's are soooo mean, their such bullies, we can send kid after kid strapped with explosives at them but if they try to put an end to it by using force there'll be an uproar.  One side straps their children with explosives and sends them out into crowded squares and when the other side responds with their military that's seen as crossing a line.  Is there any sanity left in this world or will anything be tolerated?  Grow a pair people and learn to mind your own damn business about affairs you know little about, the least educated people on this subject are the ones who follow media coverage, or college professors, like sheep.  Blindly supporting the palestinian side doesn't make you compassionate or progressive it just makes you another blind sheep heading toward their eventual slaughter. The only way this will ever end is through victory because the Arab world will never recognize Israel's right to exist.

Sure there is a place you can sign up, it's called the Israeli Army, ha ha ha, just kidding with you.

But seriously folks, let's keep this discussion fair and civil. Sorry ManofMystery but trying to strong arm the truth for yourself as if everyone else is a fool is not good sportsmanship.

Some of my immediate family is Jewish and we all agree that this is a complicated situation with no easy solutions, and yes, we all have the deepest sympathies and regrets for loss of life on both sides.

Here is something interesting I heard lately, apparently about 1/3 of Palestenians are Christians. Nothing is simple.

Edited by Easy Money - January 15 2009 at 13:42

manofmystery wrote: Is there somewhere I can sign up in support of Israel's actions?  Always lovely to see so many people played for saps by the palestinian use of the media.

By Palestinian use of the media, do you mean the images of their dead littering the ground?


It's a bold strategy Cotton. Let's see how it works out for them.

Those Israeli's are soooo mean, their such bullies, we can send kid after kid strapped with explosives at them but if they try to put an end to it by using force there'll be an uproar.  One side straps their children with explosives and sends them out into crowded squares and when the other side responds with their military that's seen as crossing a line.

Well, yes it is, actually. If you're outraged that terrorist are strapping bombs to civilians, surely the solution is not to go in decimating civilians. I mean, in a way it's effective, since they're killing people Hamas can strap bombs to, but maybe they should use more police-type work to find those responsible? You know, like America should have done?

Grow a pair people and learn to mind your own damn business about affairs you know little about, the least educated people on this subject are the ones who follow media coverage, or college professors, like sheep.

A) You joined two complete sentences with a comma and no joiner. If you're going to call people unintelligent, you better not make obscene grammatical errors.
B) What do you know about the situation?
C) Are you in fact the basis for Stephen Colbert's on-screen persona, what with your utter disdain for facts and your apparent trust in the 'gut?'

Blindly supporting the palestinian side doesn't make you compassionate or progressive it just makes you another blind sheep heading toward their eventual slaughter. The only way this will ever end is through victory because the Arab world will never recognize Israel's right to exist.

Right to exist? It was forcefully created by Europeans for a group of Europeans. Of course they don't recognize its right to exist. On a related note, if I take over my neighbor's apartment and call it a country, he won't recognize my sovereignty. He'll call the cops.

Should point out that my willingness to destroy someone who would do my family harm has absolutely nothing to do with temper: I'm completely calm right now, and I'm making the statement that my love for my family is overwhelmingly greater than my desire to preserve the life of one who would do them harm.


Edited by Epignosis - January 15 2009 at 17:20

1800iareyay wrote: Epignosis wrote: Should point out that my willingness to destroy someone who would do my family harm has absolutely nothing to do with temper: I'm completely calm right now, and I'm making the statement that my love for my family is overwhelmingly greater than my desire to preserve the life of one who would do them harm. I think we really need to move away from this analogy. The problem, besides the ones that have already been pointed out, is that you're considering this as you. Israel didn't invade Gaza on the whim of a father or a wife. A government cannot simply mount an invasion because "tempers are flaring" or "they're threatening my family." even if someone is idealistic enough to consider the people of his or her country relatives, you cannot act on base impulses. It's why governments and systems of justice exist. Sure, if someone hurt my loved ones I'd want to kill them too. But that's WHY we have a justice system in place, to prevent rampant anarchy and Old West lawlessness.

Loving my own is not a "whim."  I hope you never take it as such.

A government has a responsibility to protect in the very least the life of its people as a father to beloved children.

I for one have had enough of the bias against Israel in mainstream media (looking at you, New York Times), and I for one am surprised at the amount of restraint Israel has thus far exhibited.

Well, at last, I read someone thinking the same thing as me about the future of Israël and Palestine: give these territories to the UN.
No, better: Bring back the Ottoman Empire!

1800iareyay wrote:   Right to exist? It was forcefully created by Europeans for a group of Europeans.

  You're right for a wrong reason. The Europeans who created Israel did it for themselves. If there was no Israel, wars a la the Iraq-Kuwait would be commonplace. That in turn would keep the price of oil prohibitively high with all the consequences. Now the Arabs have a common enemy. It's cheaper this way. Excuse my cynicism.

IVNORD wrote: To be exact, Jews lived there for quite a while too. Would you like historical references?

How is that in any way relevant? Rome used to rule France. Can the Pope annex it? Or Turkey? Let's see what would happen if they tried to turn Istanbul back into Constantinople.


Edited by 1800iareyay - January 15 2009 at 18:50

Epignosis, the problem with your analogy is that you're comparing the emotional, reflexive, indeed instinctive reaction of an individual witnessing the sudden assault of his loved ones (in many US states, appropriate use of force is justified in such circumstances, but the key term here is "appropriate").  This is markedly different in both quality and form from the carefully designed policy of a particular state.

With this said, not only is the analogy flawed--this itself is not controversial, despite your refusal to recognize it as such--but your justification of excessive force at the individual level is something with which I, and evidently others, take issue.  Defending yourself and your loved ones is one thing--only a fool would assert that you don't have this right--but "destroying" a threat after the threat is thwarted is gravely immoral.


Edited by WinterLight - January 15 2009 at 19:05