240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

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?)