"Palestinians hit by sonic boom air raids"

[Pangloss]

Yah, well put.

 

And of course, we've had to struggle over similar conundrums in our country lately over a little thing called the War in Iraq. We've hardly come out squeeky clean in the arena of affecting civilians ourselves.

[ecoli]

Yah' date=' well put.

 

And of course, we've had to struggle over similar conundrums in our country lately over a little thing called the War in Iraq. We've hardly come out squeeky clean in the arena of affecting civilians ourselves.[/quote']

 

though, I must say that I doubt the intentions of the Israelis significantly less then our own government.

[YT2095]

Like I said before, two wrongs do not make a right no matter how hard you try to justify it.

 

although in many instances this may hold true, surely you can`t expect all wrongs to go unpunished either can you? there has to be consequences at Some point, and I don`t see setting of loud bangers arbitrarily as anyway near as bad as launching loaded rockets over a wall arbitrarily, rockets that ARE designed to kill, innocents or not.

these rockets don`t care who or what they destroy.

[doG]

although in many instances this may hold true' date=' surely you can`t expect all wrongs to go unpunished either can you? there has to be consequences at Some point, and I don`t see setting of loud bangers arbitrarily as anyway near as bad as launching loaded rockets over a wall arbitrarily, rockets that ARE designed to kill, innocents or not.

these rockets don`t care who or what they destroy.[/quote']

No, I don't expect Hamas to go unpunished or be free of any consequences. I'm only saying that there are innocent citizens that have zero control or influence over anything that Hamas does that the Israelis are targeting with these tactics. I realize these sound attacks are not as deadly as the rockets used by Hamas but that it beside the point. There are elderly in these communities that will have heart failure from their fear. It is not fair to these people and it just drives the undecided young hotheads in these communities to join efforts like those of Hamas. It's an unjust, illogical approach to the problem; it punishes innocents and creates new terrorist recruits.

[YT2095]

do these Double Standards Not bother you then?

 

the fact that THEY of all people Complain about it after what they`ve done or Allowed to Happen, which is somewhat worse IMO.

[ecoli]

do these Double Standards Not bother you then?

 

the fact that THEY of all people Complain about it after what they`ve done or Allowed to Happen' date=' which is somewhat worse IMO.[/quote']

 

fight apathy! I'll admit that most of the Palestinians may not be in the position to speak out against Hamas and other groups. The PA has spoken out against specific attacks, but has done little to try and reign these groups in. They need the support of the people. Its a vicious cycle.

[LazerFazer]

@ecoli:

The PA has spoken out against specific attacks' date=' but has done little to try and reign these groups in. They need the support of the people. Its a vicious cycle.

[/quote']

 

Can the PA really reign in these groups? They've only had complete authority over the Gaza Strip for a few months now, and prior to that their law enforcement capabilities were completely dissimated. Yes, they do need the support of the people, but how can you expect their support when most of them are living in poverty?

 

The international community has turned a blind eye to the plight of the children of Palestine for too long. Under Israeli occupation, the Palestinian economy has suffered major setbacks, and poverty has run rampant. It is estimated that more than 77 percent of the population of Gaza now lives below the poverty line, with 23 percent of them living in ‘deep poverty’. Palestinian infrastructure is almost non-existent due to Israeli destruction of said infrastructure. The international community expects the Palestinians to deal with so-called terrorists single-handedly, while they barely have the resources and personnel to ensure the nation does not dissolve into anarchy. How can such a state combat terrorism, when the majority of their prisons and police stations have been destroyed by the Israeli army as ‘precautionary measures’? Moreover, how can we expect the government to get any support, when the majority of the population is worried about what they are going to eat for dinner tomorrow evening? We need to look at both sides of the conflict, and take into account the effect of the conflict on both parties. Yes, both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered, but who has suffered more? No, I'm not condoning the tactics employed by groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that are bent on destroying Israel. At the same time, I'm saying the Israeli government should review the tactics they employ to root out terrorismt and protect their citizens. Both sides need to make the prospect of peace enticing to the other side. If the two sides realise that they rely on each other, the chances of peace being established in the region will be much higher. Also, one side needs to take the initiative and prove that peace is a viable alternative to the current conflict. As much as I am loathe to admit it, the Palestinian Authority does not have the power nor the resources nor the infrastracture to take this initiative, and so the weight, unfortunately, falls onto the shoulders of the Israelis. If they can prove that peace will be more beneficial to both sides, then I assure you peace will become a reality much sooner. They need to put and end to their policies of collective punishments, and perhaps train the Palestinian security forces to better deal with the threats posed by those bent on sabotaging chances at a two-state solution.

 

@doG

Yes, good points. I feel the same way (about your last post)

 

cheers,

LazerFazer

[ecoli]

Can the PA really reign in these groups?

 

 

no... I'll be the first to admit it. That was my point. They haven't been around long enough, and they don't have the support of the people, who have been too long influenced by terrorist groups, poverty, etc.

[ecoli]

I should add... Palestinians support the terrorist groups because of miseducation. They are taught from a young age to be anti-Israeli. From an article from the Washington Post...

 

Obeying 'a holy duty' to kill

By Betsy Pisik

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20020517-7676084.htm

 

GAZA CITY' date=' Gaza Strip -- A mother lovingly dresses her 12-year-old son in the homemade costume of a suicide bomber, complete with small kaffiyeh, a belt of electrical tape and fake explosives made of plywood.

 

"I encourage him, and he should do this," said the woman, the mother of six. "God gave him to me to defend our land. Palestinian women must have more and more children till we liberate our land. This is a holy duty for all Palestinian people."

 

Her son, Abu Ali, joyfully marched in a mask on the day commemorating the Nakba, or "catastrophe," as Palestinians call the day of Israel's founding in 1948.

 

"I hope to be a martyr," he said. "I hope when I get to 14 or 15 to explode myself."

 

The suicide bomber thrives on a culture of fatalism, nurtured in a landscape of poverty and hopelessness, and popularized by a Palestinian government whose policies have demonized Israel.

 

Millions of Palestinians are encouraged to stay in squalid refugee camps, a rebuke to the Jewish state's existence. Textbooks don't even show Israel on the map.

 

During the current intifada, or uprising, against Israel's military and economic dominance, the martyr has become the ultimate weapon.

 

A suicide culture

 

Between 1990 and 2000 the Israeli police catalogued 35 separate suicide-bombing incidents, including successful hits and failed attempts.

 

Since January 2000, there have been 119 incidents throughout Israel proper and against Israeli targets in Gaza and the West Bank, Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman said.

 

For every Park Hotel — where 29 persons were killed by a suicide bomber on the first night of Passover — there are many more attempts in Jewish settlements in Gaza or at army checkpoints in the West Bank. Few are successful, but they have wide support throughout the Arab world.

 

"Why are these settlers and soldiers here? They occupy our land. They are legitimate targets," said Ismail Abu Shenab, the political adviser to Hamas, the resistance group responsible for most suicide attacks.

 

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is an offshoot of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. It was formed after Ariel Sharon, now Israel's prime minister, visited Jerusalem's Temple Mount on Sept. 28, 2000. For Palestinians, the visit marks the beginning of the present uprising.

 

With funding that the Israelis say comes directly from the Palestinian Authority, the brigade has joined Hamas as sponsors of suicide bombers, with military-grade explosives now replacing homemade chemical cocktails. They have also begun to use women, who arouse less suspicion.

 

Teen-agers as young as 13, drawn in by a complex mix of adulation and anger, have begun to sacrifice themselves at Israeli targets.

 

The Israelis accuse the Palestinian Authority of perpetuating the cult of the suicide bomber, starting in elementary schools.

 

"Every single school we went into in Jenin, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Qalqilya or Tulkarm was plastered with posters of the glorification of the [martyrs']," said Col. Miri Eisen, an intelligence officer with the Israeli army. "They are teaching a generation that violence is OK."

 

This education often begins on the streets and in the home, as in the case of the woman dressing her 12-year-old son in the suicide-bomber costume.

 

Deadly foes

 

The Israeli Defense Forces are by far the most sophisticated and powerful military force in the region. The 5,000 or so Jewish settlers and as many soldiers deployed in Gaza have proved to be an irresistible target to the Palestinians.

 

The army has had to adapt to fight an enemy who expects to die.

 

"The only real strategy is prevention," said Col. Guy Zur, who is in charge of military operations for the Gaza Strip. "We can only hope to stop them before they get here."

 

To this end, the Israelis have built an electric fence on its border with Gaza — the launching pad for so much extremism — and all but closed its legitimate border crossings to Palestinians.

 

The Israelis confronted this new foe in the West Bank during last month's Operation Defensive Shield: Twenty-three Israeli soldiers died in the attack against the Jenin refugee camp, and half of those soldiers were lost in a single ambush in a courtyard.

 

"These [people] booby-trapped their own houses," said one soldier in disbelief. "It was like they didn't expect to be coming back."

 

Posters in the Palestinian territories are not advertisements for unaffordable products, but ghoulish celebrations of the men who died in a battle to liberate their land.

 

One blew up a bus near Tel Aviv. One scaled a settlement wall with two loaded pistols. Another strapped on an explosive belt and headed for a coffee shop in Jerusalem.

 

Tucked behind a sports club in Gaza City, two dozen members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade train for the day they will face Israeli troops.

 

Clad in camouflage pants and damp black T-shirts, the men are put though their paces of calisthenics and wrestling.

 

They are mostly unarmed, although one man handles a yellow grenade and a few hold handguns and rifles.

 

They anticipate an Israeli invasion of Gaza and expect the battle to be much bloodier than in the Jenin refugee camp last month.

 

After the workout, the men run through the streets of Gaza City, shouting "Allah Akbar," which means, "God is great." Beside them are little boys, scrambling and singing in emulation.

 

Anger replaces grief

 

Funerals here do more than honor the dead. They are a safety valve for the living, an explosive expression of the anger that marks daily life in the Palestinian territories.

 

Hundreds of men turned out for the funeral earlier this month of Khalid Abu Siamm, a Gazan who was killed by Israeli soldiers at the Church of the Nativity.

 

The reeking month-old body was draped in a Palestinian flag, sprayed with perfume and paraded through the streets accompanied by loud chanting and gunfire.

 

"By the soul, by the blood, we sacrificed you, martyr," they yelled, surging through the streets of Gaza.

 

At martyr, or "shehid" funerals, some of the mourners wear masks to hide their faces. Many also wear headbands to show their allegiance to Hamas or Fatah or Islamic Jihad, the three main Palestinian groups. Flags and banners flutter everywhere.

 

The mood is anger rather than grief, more political than melancholy. And for the rest of the day, the Palestinian town or village feels electrified with an air of possibility and purpose.

 

"We are powerless against Israeli occupation," says taxi driver Eyad Awal, a day after Mr. Siamm's funeral. "We have nothing; we are nothing until they leave. We will do nothing but fight the occupation, but you know, it's hard, because they have tanks and Apaches [helicopters] and guns, and we have no weapons."

 

Driving through a city plastered with posters of martyrs, he adds, "We have nothing to do but die."

 

The martyr painter

 

The paintings of martyrs that decorate so many Palestinian squares and roadways are done by Bahaa Yassin, a laid-back resident of the Al-Nosairat refugee camp in Gaza.

 

A newlywed who expects his first child in three months, Mr. Yassin, 24, says it feels no different to paint martyrs than it does a family portrait. Now that stores cannot afford his billboards, the martyrs are his best commissions.

 

The artist says he doesn't mind if his work is used to glorify suicide bombers. "Personally, I don't care about this. I draw what they bring," he says. "But I think that is the idea of the people who want this work."

 

Hisham Zaqout, whose nephew Youssef, 15, was killed by Israeli soldiers when he tried to infiltrate a Jewish settlement with a knife, says the family is in mourning.

 

The Zaqouts are clearly in grief and shock over the unexpected death of their son, but the uncle acknowledges that the hastily printed posters and endless stream of well-wishers, mourners and media have helped ease their pain.

 

"In Islam, sacrifice is the highest honor," he says. "Youssef did this for all of us to be free."

[ecoli]

for some reason, my edit button doesn't seem to be working, but I wanted to add this: There was another terrorist attack yesterday (or was it the day before?). 5 people were killed.

[5614]

doG, you are saying that Israel shouldn't sonic boom the Palestinians because there are innocent civilians there.

 

To this argument, your argument, one can easily respond by saying that the majority of the Israeli's killled in these missile attacks and suicide bombings are all Israeli civilians.

 

Your argument is like saying that America shouldn't invade Iraq because of the civilians, or the UK (and allies incl. america) shouldn't have invaded Nazi occupied Europe because there were civilians there.

 

And saying how "2 wrongs don't make a right" is hardly applicable. If missiles were sent into your country, not guided missiles to military targets, but unguided missiles which land randomly in the middle of densely populated cities you would retaliate, everyone would.

 

Indeed IMO the fact the Israeli's are using sonic booms and not explosives is a good thing. They are sending a warning. They don't want to invade Gaza or continue their house to house searching for many reasons. Similarly they don't especially want to kill lots of Palestinian civilians.

 

The Palestinians shot rockets at and used suicide bombers against Israel first, Israel will retaliate, non-lethal weapons are surely the best way to do this at the moment. If it gets out of hand and explosives are needed then fair enough, but Israel is fighting Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers with sonic booms, from that perspective Israel seems to be far less violent. It is receiving rockets and bombs from Palestinian and replying with merely an audio warning.

 

And what you said about the youth being driven down paths like Hamas. They are already forced down that path, see ecoli's post. And if you think that a big bang will make the Palestinians join Hamas then surely Israelis having their friends and family killed will make the Israelis more likely to want to retaliate against the Palestinians?

 

Oh, and when someone called the Palestinians defenceless... well lets exclude the many thousands of rockets, guns, mortars, missiles, bombs, anti-personel, anti-vehicle, mines, anti-aircraft... my a$$ the Palestinians are defenceless.

[Pangloss]

Your argument is like saying that America shouldn't invade Iraq because of the civilians' date=' or the UK (and allies incl. america) shouldn't have invaded Nazi occupied Europe because there were civilians there.

 

And saying how "2 wrongs don't make a right" is hardly applicable.[/quote']

 

Actually he was responding to other people's points justifying the sonic booms on the basis that Israeli civilians were also attacked. THAT's what he called "two wrongs making a right", and his assessment was correct. Your criticism is incorrect.

[ecoli]

Actually he was responding to other people's points justifying the sonic booms on the basis that Israeli civilians were also attacked. THAT's what he called "two wrongs making a right", and his assessment was correct. Your criticism is incorrect.

 

 

I disagree with you on this one. It's not about 'right' and 'wrong' here, which change depending on the what side of the situation you look it from. The sonic booms were retaliation against terrorst violence. I agree with 5614, it may not be applicable here. the Israeli's aren't trying to harm the Palestinaians because they think they're right. whatever there goal is, to send a message, etc... the goal is to protect its citizens, which, for Israel, is the right thing for it to do.

[phcatlantis]

What in the world are they thinking? Why would they think that something like that would decrease[/i'] civilian support for armed Palestinian groups? Isn't it rather obvious that it would have the opposite effect?

 

By that reasoning, shouldn't non-lethal crowd control measures invigorate and coalesce rioting mobs? The Israelis are using a first and foremost non-lethal tactic that is no less indiscriminate and far less dangerous than gas, so what's your problem?

 

I do agree with the point that criticism over Israel tends to be overblown compared with criticism of Palestinians, but Israel's done far worse than this.

 

Yes. Israel, like most other countries faced with a violent and determined foe, have used bullets, explosives, and other lethal measures. What's so bad about some loud noise and frightened children?

 

By the way, YT, you need to read a little more about Israeli fundamentalist groups. Some of those guys make run-of-the-mill islamofascists look like harmless little brownshirts.

 

I'm curious. How many attacks by Israeli civilians against against Palestinians civilians have their been in the past four years? How about visa versa?

[phcatlantis]

Actually he was responding to other people's points justifying the sonic booms on the basis that Israeli civilians were also attacked. THAT's what he called "two wrongs making a right", and his assessment was correct. Your criticism is incorrect.

 

His assessment isn't correct. It isn't even an assessment. It's an assertion, one that presumes, insanely so, that either the right to self-defense is a wrong or that Israel has no such right in this case.

[Pangloss]

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Mine differs.

 

(And that's what happens when you close your mind and start spinning what other people are saying, instead of actually seeking information and alternative opinions.)

[Pangloss]

I disagree with you on this one. It's not about 'right' and 'wrong' here, which change depending on the what side of the situation you look it from. The sonic booms were retaliation against terrorst violence. I agree with 5614, it may not be applicable here. the Israeli's aren't trying to harm the Palestinaians because they think they're right. whatever there goal is, to send a message, etc... the goal is to protect its citizens, which, for Israel, is the right thing for it to do.

 

For the record, I think this is a perfectly valid and even interesting position. Completely in contrast with the assaults from 5614 and phcatlantis. I disagree, but it's a position I can respect (and continue to discuss).

 

I think that's why Israel has gotten into trouble, and it's a position we need to try as hard as we can NOT to duplicate (in the US). It's part of the whole "we become like them" argument. Sure, I understand the counter-point ("we might actually lose"), but Israel's been dealing with this for, what, 50+ years? And where has it gotten them? Has the violence stopped?

 

Phc calls doG insane? No. I'll tell you what insanity is. Doing the same thing over and over again, something you KNOW isn't working, hoping for a different result. THAT's insanity.

[ecoli]

For the record, I think this is a perfectly valid and even interesting position. Completely in contrast with the assaults from 5614 and phcatlantis. I disagree, but it's a position I can respect (and continue to discuss).

 

and I appreciate this respect

 

I think that's why Israel has gotten into trouble, and it's a position we need to try as hard as we can NOT to duplicate (in the US). It's part of the whole "we become like them" argument. Sure, I understand the counter-point ("we might actually lose"), but Israel's been dealing with this for, what, 50+ years? And where has it gotten them? Has the violence stopped?

 

not stopped, but at least there hasn't been a full scale war in the last 30 years. It seems sad to me, is that this situation could have been avoided is the Palestinians had been willing to accept statehood in 1948 along with Israel. The original plan was for Israel to split along the west bank (with Jerusalem shared between them. but, the Palestinian statement was "all or nothing" at the time. This would have been a good solution, because most of the "Blue" Jews would have been ok with it, and many of the "Orange" Jews didn't support the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 anyway. "No Israel without the messiah" was there position. they wouldn't have complained any louder about it, and both parties would have been content. and Perhaps democratic. oh well... I guess it's useless to speculate on "might have beens"

[phcatlantis]

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Mine differs.

 

I'm not so sure that it is your opinion, when we get past the truisms. Which is why I even jumped into the conversation in the first place. You did sum up Dog's point succinctly--two wrongs don't make a right. The implication there is that Israel's employment of this tactic wrong. And that is an assertion. Nevermind that its non-lethal, nevermind that it is particularly less lethal to the enemy's population than most alternatives short of abdicating defense entirely. We're simply to take Dog's gut feeling (which you possibly share) as reason enough to denounce this method. Don't you think you owe an explanation as to why?

 

(And that's what happens when you close your mind and start spinning what other people are saying, instead of actually seeking information and alternative opinions.)

 

Let me ask you something. Are you willing to entertain a position that holds "Israel should pave Gaza to glass?" Or do you have a point you won't go beyond? We can stick to the merits without having to impugn one another's openmindedness. And at least I'm addressing Dog's points.

[phcatlantis]

For the record, I think this is a perfectly valid and even interesting position. Completely in contrast with the assaults from 5614 and phcatlantis. I disagree, but it's a position I can respect (and continue to discuss).

 

I'd love for you to point out the difference between my position and ecoli's.

 

I think that's why Israel has gotten into trouble, and it's a position we need to try as hard as we can NOT to duplicate (in the US). It's part of the whole "we become like them" argument. Sure, I understand the counter-point ("we might actually lose"), but Israel's been dealing with this for, what, 50+ years?

 

And where has it gotten them? Has the violence stopped?

 

Considerably so. Israel's neighbors lack the capacity or will to fight after losing five wars and considerable amounts of blood, treasure and (for a lengthy period of time) territory. Palestinian nationalism is barely fifty years old, and mass Palestinian resistance against Occupation is less than thirty. After that, the vast majority of the casualties sustained by Israel after 1948 due to Palestinian violence occurred after Oslo. [1,2].

 

Unsurprisingly, this is precisely why there was such a large constituency against land for peace deals. From the Israeli experience, far more deadly experiences followed Oslo and Camp David than the initial settlement of the West Bank. So while withdrawal from the occupied territories is strategically and operationally desirable, doing so under conditions negotiated with a partner that seems unwilling and at times supportive of a deadly terrorist foe remains a hotly contested question.

 

Phc calls doG insane?

 

I said his presumption that either Israel has no right of self-defense or in this case no such claim is insane. I'm sure we've all held onto a number of insane beliefs for whatever reason.

 

No. I'll tell you what insanity is. Doing the same thing over and over again, something you KNOW isn't working, hoping for a different result. THAT's insanity.

 

And what does the data say on the effectiveness of sonic booms (or other non-lethal measures) as a means of disrupting civilian support for terrorism?

[doG]

doG' date=' you are saying that Israel shouldn't sonic boom the Palestinians because there are innocent civilians there.

 

To this argument, your argument, one can easily respond by saying that the majority of the Israeli's killled in these missile attacks and suicide bombings are all Israeli civilians.

 

Your argument is like saying that America shouldn't invade Iraq because of the civilians, or the UK (and allies incl. america) shouldn't have invaded Nazi occupied Europe because there were civilians there.[/quote']

No it's not. What I'm saying is that if the mafia of New York attacks the country of Wiki Wiki it would not be OK for the government of Wiki Wiki to attack the citizens of New York just because that's where the thugs also live.

 

There is no doubt that the terrorist thugs of Hamas are killing innocent civilians in Israel but they are not doing so as representatives of the Palestinian people or as a recognized government of those people.

 

The Israeli's are making blind attacks on communities with the specific intent of haranging innocent civilians without even knowing if any of them could do anything about Hamas. If Israel wants the Palestinian people to help then they should try more honey and less vinegar. The tactics they are using now will just add fuel the fire instead of water.

[Pangloss]

I'm not so sure that it is your opinion, when we get past the truisms. Which is why I even jumped into the conversation in the first place. You did sum up Dog's point succinctly--two wrongs don't make a right. The implication there is that Israel's employment of this tactic wrong. And that is an assertion. Nevermind that its non-lethal, nevermind that it is particularly less lethal to the enemy's population than most alternatives short of abdicating defense entirely. We're simply to take Dog's gut feeling (which you possibly share) as reason enough to denounce this method. Don't you think you owe an explanation as to why?

 

First of all, I don't owe you anything. Polite people ask. They don't claim debt.

 

Getting back to the point, my position (stated here) is that Israel is making a tactical error, not a moral wrong. I think they're making a huge error in judgement. Whether it is a morally valid course of action is not something that I've commented on.

 

I might be interested in commenting on it, if you'd like to hear what I have to say. But I think you'll find me more willing to respond to a question rather than an assumption. Don't quote me back and try to spin my words to suit some angry agenda. Just... ask.

 

 

Let me ask you something. Are you willing to entertain a position that holds "Israel should pave Gaza to glass?" Or do you have a point you won't go beyond?

 

I can't even begin to fathom what I've said that could suggest to you that I would take a position like that. And I don't understand your question at all.

[Pangloss]

I think that's why Israel has gotten into trouble' date=' and it's a position we need to try as hard as we can NOT to duplicate (in the US). It's part of the whole "we become like them" argument. Sure, I understand the counter-point ("we might actually lose"), but Israel's been dealing with this for, what, 50+ years? [/quote']

 

Considerably so. Israel's neighbors lack the capacity or will to fight after losing five wars and considerable amounts of blood, treasure and (for a lengthy period of time) territory.

 

And yet, that hasn't worked out at all, has it? Israel's neighbors lack the capacity to send battalions of tanks about the region, but they seem to have no shortage of able-bodied volunteers ready to blow themselves up for the cause. You did a good job linking the details of the first intifada. I recommend reading up on the details of the second one.

 

And low and behold, guess what kicked that one off. An ultra-conservative Israeli politician who thought the Palestinians would just roll over from a non-violent show of superiority. Kinda like... sonic-booming a civilian population. Imagine that.

 

 

Unsurprisingly, this is precisely why there was such a large constituency against land for peace deals. From the Israeli experience, far more deadly experiences followed Oslo and Camp David than the initial settlement of the West Bank. So while withdrawal from the occupied territories is strategically and operationally desirable, doing so under conditions negotiated with a partner that seems unwilling and at times supportive of a deadly terrorist foe remains a hotly contested question.

 

And that's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that perpetuates senseless violence in the region. The reason they should be making "land for peace deals" is that it's not their land.

 

(Any chance we can skip a boiler-plate moral justification for the Israeli land grab and just go right to the usual denoument and just agree to disagree?) ;-)

[phcatlantis]

First of all, I don't owe you anything[/i']. Polite people ask. They don't claim debt.

 

All right. I'll ask] in the future.

 

Getting back to the point, my position (stated here) is that Israel is making a tactical error, not a moral wrong. I think they're making a huge error in judgement. Whether it is a morally valid course of action is not something that I've commented on.

 

You did. Precisely where I entered the discussion, in fact. In your words: "THAT's what he called 'two wrongs making a right', and his assessment was correct." I specifically entered the conversation to refute the characterization of this truism as an assessment.

 

I might be interested in commenting on it, if you'd like to hear what I have to say.

 

I sure would, but more importanly I think others probably care as well. I hope you don't censor yourself on my behalf.

 

I can't even begin to fathom what I've said that could suggest to you that I would take a position like that. And I don't understand your question at all.

 

My question was whether or not you'd entertain such a position, not whether you'd adopt it.

[ecoli]

There is no doubt that the terrorist thugs of Hamas are killing innocent civilians in Israel but they are not doing so as representatives of the Palestinian people or as a recognized government of those people.

 

I direct you back to my post 34. Surely not all Palestinians like what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing, but do factors such as mal-education, many of them support terrorism. This is a rather unfortunate thing.

 

And that's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that perpetuates senseless violence in the region. The reason they should be making "land for peace deals" is that it's not their land.

 

what land are you talking about? Gaza, or Israel?