Yes, lets not kill the militants because they are women or under 18... Great war strategy! :rolleyes:

Firing over 8,000 rockets into Israel since 2007 isn't sufficient provocation? Do we need to wait for the big 10k mark or something?

Addressing whether any of the claims of weapons are proven/true, the big news story that a UN school was bombed rarely came along with the interesting tidbit that both Israelis and Palestinian witnesses admitted that about 10 minutes before the shelling, a bunch of rockets had been fired in Israel from that spot. Yes, some infants and toddlers are dying, but the large numbers being reported include the 14-17 year old militants that are a major part of Hamas.

See this is where you and I are probably getting our wires crossed.
I DO believe Israel has a right to retaliate. So they should retaliate on the land that is firing those rockets. BUT, I believe that Israel should fire from their land. They don't have to occupy Gaza or the West Bank to retaliate.

Israel might not be condoning it, but I do believe the Israeli soldiers that occupy the West Bank/Gaza sometimes take things into their own hands. So they don't have to be provoked to fire on an cars/trucks/ambulances/etc carrying Palestinian children (and they weren't 14-17 year olds), etc.

FWIW, NPR (relatively unbiased, I believe) reported that 28 Israelis have died as a result of rocket attacks since 1999. Most of the rockets have until fairly recently been laughably inept.

Elephant in the room no one is discussing - the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

I see similar attitude in the press and it strikes me as insane.

Israel can fight back, but it's required to do so with one arm tied behind its back, basically?

No.

Imagine a situation that a group of Canadians fired rockets at civilian areas in New York. Also imagine that the Canadian government is unwilling to do anything to prevent it and is actually politically affiliated with the group engaged in the rocket fire. You think the appropriate response disallows a ground war? That's crazy to me. The obligation to defend New Yorkers is much greater than the obligation to the country harboring people killing New Yorkers.

Oddly, changing the situation to parallel that the land the Canadians were firing from had been land previously occupied by the US makes me think that the mistake was in withdrawing from the land in the first place.

I think Israel has right to exist and protect itself. I have much greater faith in Israel to leave other "countries" alone if they would just leave it alone and make an active effort to suppress groups they harbor who seek to harm Israel. If they fail to do so, then Israel must act.

(Did you see the articles that suggested that the rockets from Gaza were getting increasingly likely to hit an nuclear power plant in Israel? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5430133.ece. Doesn't that provide the kind of urgency that puts concerns about temporary "occupation" on the back burner?)

And what is it that you think they were trying to prevent getting in?

^^^^^

plummeted the average IQ in this thread into the negatives.

there has been mature adult discussion on this board about race in the past. you just aren't equipped to contribute.

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to get at. How would Israel be fighting with "one hand tied behind it's back?" If the US & Canada (per your analogy) started fighting, would we be fighting w/ one hand tied behind our back because we aren't occupying Canada? No.

Yes, they were probably were trying to prevent guns & such to enter Gaza, and I totally agree with that. But by putting a blockade on that, they also prevented much needed supplies (like food) to enter Gaza. That is the reason that the UN had asked for a ceasefire (back in Oct/Nov) in the first place, to prevent the people of Gaza from starvation.


ETA: Maybe I should try to clarify what I mean when I say that Israel shouldn't be "occupying" West Bank/Gaza. I mean that Israel should take away the blockades, and checkpoints they have set up in those areas. Those checkpoints are not allowing Palestinians to go from point A to point B within their "own land."

It seemed that your definition of occupation is engaging in a ground war if you think that Israel recently started occupying Gaza in response to the rockets. Maybe I misunderstood.

ETA: I just think it's really odd that people seem to willingly suppress the knowledge of why Israel is engaging in checkpoints and blockades. It doesn't seem to be anything other than self-defense to me. If Gaza's leadership were willing to actively prevent attacks on Israel themselves, I doubt Israel would find blockages and checkpoints necessary. But instead, we have Hamas.

Yeah, I apologize. I'm pretty sure I worded myself wrong, so it wasn't that you misunderstood.

I just keep remembering a PBS/Frontline documentary I watched several years ago about life in the West Bank. They showed how hard it was to travel just in the West Bank b/c Israel has set up so many checkpoints.

That is what I meant by "occupying." I think if Israel would do away with those type of checkpoints, and allow Palestinians to move freely within the land (I only know about West Bank, i'm not sure how it is in Gaza) it might help.

I would agree, if the checkpoints were set up in Israel (and around the borders). I do understand why the checkpoints are there, but to have to so many (well at the time the documentary was filmed) is unnecessary.

I distinctly remember one part of the documentary where they were traveling with a Palestinian family. The family was going to a different area of the West Bank to celebrate a family member's birthday. They went through one or two checkpoints alright, but then weren't allowed through another because they weren't "dressed right." So they weren't allowed to pass, so they turned around and tried to head home, but got stopped at another checkpoint (one that they had passed through fine several minutes before). They weren't allowed to pass through that checkpoint, and weren't able to get home, they were stuck in that area of the West Bank (overnight, or until the Israeli soldier allowed them to pass through).

That, I think is unneccessary. What "self-defense" is Israel trying to prevent with that family? They had all the paperwork they needed to show @ the checkpoints, and the camera guy confirmed they were going to a party.

Yeah, there's was a time I might have been optimistic too, but that's not what I've actually observed in my lifetime.

It seems to be much more a case that whenever Israel makes a concession, anti-Israel groups see it as a sign of weakness.

I mean theoretically, Israel withdrawing from the Gaza strip and bulldozing Israeli settlements a few years ago ought to have done a lot of good, but no.

Exactly. It's a lose-lose situation for both sides.

Do I think there can ever be peace? I do. The people in Gaza have to see that Hamas isn't doing much for them, surely isn't living up to the "bringer of peace" type image they have tried to portray, and they have to be fed up enough to stand up to Hamas. Hamas is only as powerful as the people allow them to be. There has to be concessions on both sides.

Where'd you see Hamas as a "bringer of peace" type thing?

I heard it in an MSNBC special a few day ago. They spoke to an ex-Hamas member, and he said Hamas members (and leaders) were killing each other in Gaza, and in Israeli prisons. So then the reporter mentioned something about how they aren't living up to what they claimed to be doing--bringing peace.

ETA: The reporter had said that is why Hamas gained power in Gaza in the first place. Honestly, I don't really know too much about Hamas, so i'm not sure if that is accurate or not.

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

Ahh thanks. I guess I haven't learned not to believe everything reporters tell you! haha.

And that is definitely true about suicide bombers and such. I guess, to me it's more logical that they would be suicide bombers if they were traveling from the West Bank to Israel, instead of traveling within the West Bank (and without a British camerapeople).