Gaza

[jeff]

pm, if all you said was along the lines of your last post, it really wouldn't be a big deal. Those are not inflammatory, and even in the US there are people who would sign up for similar sentiments. It would fit in the range of opinions expressed here.

Unfortunately, the comments you've made frequently go far beyond that, and have the effect of a lighted match in a pool of gasoline. That starts with the "wife beating" nature of how this thread was posed (I hope the metaphor isn't lost on you this time), and some of your comments that - let's be frank - at least appeared to exculpate Hamas rocket attacks because (after all) they were cut 99% , handn't killed anyone, etc. Or statements that they could be "pragmatic" and could be dealt with despite their unrenounced charter Fine, you agree they're a terrorist organization - but then we should follow that line of thought to assign them the appropriate level of guilt for attacking Israel, smuggling weapons, killing Fatah supporters, etc. Even the Gazan street says that Hamas brought death down on their heads. That has been missing, along with the insistence that Hamas must renounce its charter.

There has been no recognition, IMO, from your side that the Palestinians bear a great deal of responsibility for the afflictions they've suffered and they also have to bear guilt for the deaths of innocents on both sides of the border lines. Terrorists with suicide belts of explosives lead to barrier walls and the humiliating and slow checkpoints - which BTW have reduced the effectiveness of suicide bombers in Israel and are obviously the right thing to have done - despite the continued complaints about these life-saving but unpleasant systems. It is indeed the case that the UK (more, IMO than the Continent) has been complicit and silent in the face of aggression against Israel, even when the suicide bombers were very effective against civilians. I find that deeply offensive, and the storyline above about why they've only protested in favor of one side in one conflict extremely unconvincing. It's not just Arab bias, it's European bias that is a deep part of the problem, especially among the Left.

To your last 'content' post, I'll just respond that the Falklands case is so clearly parallel. Hm a nation plans to give up some land (I'd like to see a cite on UK willingness pre-war to return the islands, but it's tangential to the point), is attacked by the other party which stiffens its resolve to not only keep it but to war on the other party. Decades later it still owns that land. You really can't see a parallel here? Clearly, to me at least, Israel has much better justification for keeping the West Bank, from which it can be attacked, than UK has for keeping the Falklands. For the sharply critical comments within Israel about Israel's policy: I point out that this demonstrates an openness of opinion and willingness for self-criticism, coupled with a free press and court system that is completely lacking in the Palestinian and Muslim side. The 'peace parties' exist in Israel (sharply weakened now, with the population more hawkish), but is absent in their opponent's sides.

I've stirred up a little more argument. I hadn't really intended to do that this morning. I would strongly recommend you do a little self evaluation as telk suggests, and perhaps consider that you have been less than evenly balanced on these issues. If we cannot proceed in tones that don't lay blame on Israel without the appropriate context and blame laid elsewhere, then it perhaps might be best if we didn't have this discussion at all, as it only leads to the rancor predicted when this thread started.

For my position, the Foreign Affairs article is relatively representative on what has to be done by all sides. Not 100% my views, but fairly close.

In haste, not proof-read, and I hope my last post on this subject here.

[pigeonmeister]

pm, if all you said was along the lines of your last post, it really wouldn't be a big deal. Those are not inflammatory, and even in the US there are people who would sign up for similar sentiments. It would fit in the range of opinions expressed here.

OK.

Unfortunately, the comments you've made frequently go far beyond that, and have the effect of a lighted match in a pool of gasoline. That starts with the "wife beating" nature of how this thread was posed (I hope the metaphor isn't lost on you this time), and some of your comments that - let's be frank - at least appeared to exculpate Hamas rocket attacks because (after all) they were cut 99% , handn't killed anyone, etc.

I'm going to have to admit that I still don't 'get' the wife beating metaphor. Sorry, I'm not being obtuse.

I believe we could both cherry pick statements we each find 'inflammatory'.

Consider: "Withdraw any help organisations and/or peace keeping forces now and let them finish the bombing once and for all. Once they're done we can tarmac the entire area and make the worlds largest parking lot."

"Until such time as the Palestinians change their goal from the eradication of Israel to peaceful coexistence.."

"For some people, especially those from the EU, dead Jews tend to be much more popular then the living ones"

Slim has even suggested that I form my opinion essentially because there are too many Muslims living in the UK..

I find that I alone being asked to question my bias- on a thread littered with comments like this to be a slightly one-sided excercise in self analysis. I'd probably add that I have received a fair bit of + rep from Americans for some of my posts here. Of course, I am probably glad that - rep was gotten rid of...

Let's turn this around. I think that there is no point pretending Hamas, its domestic support and its ideology can be obliterated by military force. I believe that maintaining a ceasefire requires both sides to honour their committment- ending 99% of all attacks shows things were going in the right direction. The IRA never got close to that even after their terrorists were released from jail. I don't think Israel honoured 99% of their side of the ceasefire. I believe that it is not impossible that Hamas can be negotiated with (as Fatah/PLO were) and that eventually Israel probably will.

These are all analytical, not moral, judgements. They do not amount to support for Hamas or atone for their terrorist activities.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation that would very much like to see the elimination of Israel. The extent to which they think this is a realistic prospect I am unsure- but that they maintain a rhetorical commitment is vile enough.

The difference between us is not how we characterise Hamas (as terrorists) the difference lies in the implications of this judgement for Israeli policy. I think this a much harder question for people to consider than the obvious 'Hamas and Israel are morally unquivalent'. I don't think it allows Israel the right to collectively punish the Palestinian people to this extent. I think Israeli policy is counter-productive and very probably extends its inalienable right to self defence to justify much wider aims (in terms of a 'greater Israel' and excluding Muslims from Jerusalem).

That has been missing, along with the insistence that Hamas must renounce its charter.

Hamas is part of the problem-it needs to renounce it's charter. As I keep saying, it is the implications of this judgement that requires analysis not polemic. Does it justify this action in Gaza- no, not in my opinion. Will this action in Gaza make Hamas' rhetoric less appealing, marginalised or more easily eliminated- no, not in my opinion.

There has been no recognition, IMO, from your side that the Palestinians bear a great deal of responsibility for the afflictions they've suffered and they also have to bear guilt for the deaths of innocents on both sides of the border lines.

Except the at least two times I have said guilt for the wider conflict is shared. I personally don't think Hamas was more guilty for breaking the recent cease-fire. I don't think the Palestinians bear the majority of responsibility for their own suffering. That is a very different proposition, and judgement, than you characterise above. Clearly suicide bombers are the lowest of the low.

Even the Gazan street says that Hamas brought death down on their heads

I'm sorry jeff, I just don't think you are in a position to make that assertion.

It is indeed the case that the UK (more, IMO than the Continent) has been complicit and silent in the face of aggression against Israe

Again, you give no examples and no evidence to this assertion. Are you saying that the UKG has been a supporter of Hamas or silent in the face of its atrocities?

European bias that is a deep part of the problem, especially among the Left.

Another wild assertion. Europe actually has very little influence/leverage on the A-I conflict. Our opinions (or bias) are basically neither here nor there. You may be shocked to believe that a lot of people think America's support for Israel is part of the problem. For instance, Bush's refusal to apply any pressure at all on the Israelis to end the illegal settlements. Clearly the neo-con movement had close links to very right wing elements in Israel.

To your last 'content' post, I'll just respond that the Falklands case is so clearly parallel.

I have read a huge amount of material recently on the conflict in Gaza- different opinions, different wild assertions and propaganda from both sides. Some beautifully balanced and some incoherently biased. Not once have I heard anyone, for one second, suggest that the Falklands case offers a 'clear parallel' for the current crisis in the Middle East! No religious dimension, no diaspora dimension, no regional rivalry, no terrorist element, no competing identies amongst those currently living there, no links with wider radical ideologies, no refugees, no settlements. I honestly dare you to raise this analogy in a room full of historians and I'll give you 10 dollars if they don't immediately fall into hysterics.

But I'll say again- what would be the response of the US if Argentina attacked Guam?

I point out that this demonstrates an openness of opinion and willingness for self-criticism, coupled with a free press and court system that is completely lacking in the Palestinian and Muslim side. The 'peace parties' exist in Israel (sharply weakened now, with the population more hawkish), but is absent in their opponent's sides.

In this regard I agree. It's been said many times before- but where is the Palestinian Gandhi, Mandela or MLK? Again, it is the implications of this fact that need to be expored beyond affording Israel carte blanche.

If we cannot proceed in tones that don't lay blame on Israel without the appropriate context and blame laid elsewhere, then it perhaps might be best if we didn't have this discussion at all, as it only leads to the rancor predicted when this thread started.

I agree- if people want to explore the strategic achievements of the recent conflict without any moral context I am more than happy. I have asked several times...but no one seems willing to state the benefits of this war.

strongly recommend you do a little self evaluation

Basically this amounts to 'admit you are wrong' and 'it's just you who is biased'.

I hope you also appreciate that I was not trolling and I don't have an interest in causing outrage- because I genuinly don't find my position outrageous. I will try, however, and apply a more constructive approach. In fact, I can almost guarantee that I will not mention the A-I conflict again!

Believe it or not this debate has been much more cordial and unhysterical than the vast majority of chat room debates on this issue.

I too hope this is my last post on this subject...once again.

All the best.

[Hauptman]

To clarify the "wife beating" metaphor; it represents a question that admits guilt regardless of how you answer. "Did you beat your wife today?" is a yes/no question that acknowledges that you beat your wife either way you answer. Also known as a "loaded" question.

Also, as a side note, not all of us have participated in inflammatory rhetoric here; please don't include me with Slim.

[Philistine]

To clarify the "wife beating" metaphor; it represents a question that admits guilt regardless of how you answer. "Did you beat your wife today?" is a yes/no question that acknowledges that you beat your wife either way you answer. Also known as a "loaded" question.

Actually, the classic formulation is "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet" or "when did you stop beating your wife."

--Philistine

[Hauptman]

Actually, the classic formulation is "Have you stopped beating your wife, yet" or "when did you stop beating your wife."

--Philistine

lol.... you're right, I blew it.... but then I can't tell a joke to save my life either.

[I_luv_saber]

Believe it or not this debate has been much more cordial and unhysterical than the vast majority of chat room debates on this issue.

This actually does not surprise me at all. I've attempted to engage in a little political debate on other forums in the past (not such controversial subjects as this, mind you) and it was a few posts in before it turned ugly. Much uglier than this.

We're quite spoiled here to have a pretty good group of level-headed people here. Almost all of the debate here has been very well thought out and has logic behind it, regardless of the accusations of rhetoric we make on here.

It's a very good place to get your political debating itch satisfied.

[Slim]

Slim, do you even like fencing?

Meh...not as much as hunting, but its ok.

[jeff]

I swill (foolishly) respond, especially as we're for the moment being so polite.

I'm going to have to admit that I still don't 'get' the wife beating metaphor

I think this has been adequately explained. One complaint about this thread is that it prejudged guilt from its outset.

I believe we could both cherry pick statements we each find 'inflammatory'.

Indeed we could, but it would be helpful to separate those that were deliberately done to bait you (eg: Slim), or made as a cynical wiseguy remark

I find that I alone being asked to question my bias- on a thread littered with comments like this to be a slightly one-sided excercise in self analysis

You shouldn't feel that way, you're asking those who oppose you to do the same. What is wrong about self-examination for bias, for you, me, anyone. Either you find where you were biased and deal with it, or have revalidated your judgment. This is a responsibility for anyone.

I'd probably add that I have received a fair bit of + rep from Americans for some of my posts here. Of course, I am probably glad that - rep was gotten rid of...

Shows that we have a wide range of opinion in the US, despite the stereotypes, and also that people will support somebody putting up a fight even if they don't subscribe to it (you remember the Voltaire motto, right?)

Let's turn this around. I think that there is no point pretending Hamas, its domestic support and its ideology can be obliterated by military force

Literally possible, but not politically possible since the world wouldn't stand for an Israeli military campaign conclusive enough to do this.

I believe that maintaining a ceasefire requires both sides to honour their committment- ending 99% of all attacks shows things were going in the right direction

I do not, and don't see need to reiterate the Inq's argument on this topic.

The IRA never got close to that even after their terrorists were released from jail. I don't think Israel honoured 99% of their side of the ceasefire. I believe that it is not impossible that Hamas can be negotiated with (as Fatah/PLO were) and that eventually Israel probably will

IRA is different, as has been observed previously. I disagree with the "99%" business, as it equates a % reduction in attacks on Israeli civilians with border closings. This is a false moral equivalence, and disregards the circumstances (also previously mentioned by Inq) that which add a claim (with which you may not agree, but a claim nonetheless) for legitemacy for Israel's actions (Hamas smuggling of weapons, and bombings of the crossings)

To the last part: PLO/Fatah eventually came to the peace table after being bloodied, and after having their arms twisted by third parties. Maybe that will happen with Hamas some day.

These are all analytical, not moral, judgements. They do not amount to support for Hamas or atone for their terrorist activities

Well, we can differ with analysis. Further, the preceding material can be read as "Israel didn't keep its side of the cease fire obligations, Hamas did 99% of theirs, hence the 1% was acceptable". That gets very close to the danger line of support.

It's like your remark that (I paraphrase) "Israel didn't renounce terrorism till it had a state". That assigns guilt as if it were an agreed fact and omits context (both sides attacked civilians), and leads to the line of reasoning "Palestinians do not yet have a state, so their terrorism is still okay". That may not be what you were trying to say, but it sounds like that to me, and believe me when I say that's offensive.

Which reminds me on the topic of "right of return". I don't expect Palestinians to make good on losses by Jews ethnically cleansed from other Middle East countries, nor do I expect their descendants will return from Tel Aviv to a hostile Syria or Egypt. But it's not "not Palestinian's problem" - it's part of the situation, and Palestinians (and others) must recognize that Jews were also displaced. Symbolism is important, especially in this part of the world, and all parties want and deserve their grievances recognized.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation that would very much like to see the elimination of Israel. The extent to which they think this is a realistic prospect I am unsure- but that they maintain a rhetorical commitment is vile enough.

Ok - we'll note you stated this without qualification. I'll add that they think it's realistic to achieve their goals.

I don't think it allows Israel the right to collectively punish the Palestinian people to this extent. I think Israeli policy is counter-productive

We define "collective punishment" very differently, but I don't have time for that tonight

Will this action in Gaza make Hamas' rhetoric less appealing, marginalised or more easily eliminated- no, not in my opinion

It may make Hamas think twice about baiting the bear. See my post a few weeks ago where I quoted an article about "sending a lesson to Hamas".

I personally don't think Hamas was more guilty for breaking the recent cease-fire

I understand but disagree.

I don't think the Palestinians bear the majority of responsibility for their own suffering

I understand but disagree if 100% = them + Israel. If it's them plus everybody, their share very well can be less than 50% (reread the top of my post 183)

That is a very different proposition, and judgement, than you characterise above. Clearly suicide bombers are the lowest of the low

Hold that thought a few paragraphs.

I'm sorry jeff, I just don't think you are in a position to make that assertion

I've seen this in multiple news accounts, including the NYT and the Economist. Inq even quoted one of the many news stories on this.

Again, you give no examples and no evidence to this assertion. Are you saying that the UKG has been a supporter of Hamas or silent in the face of its atrocities?

Yes if by "UKG" you mean the left-leaning elements who reserve criticism for Israel. Sorry but that's exactly how I feel.

Here's the problem. I remember vividly when Palestinian terrorists were quite successful with suicide bombings, and even bragged about targeting women and children. During these times there were no organized protests against this such as protests we've recently seen against Israel. On the contrary. I recall a film clip Vanessa Redgrave dancing around a PLO campfire with an AK-47. This acceptance of atrocities never changed. This permanently erased IMO any claim of morality from this side of the UK political spectrum.

Europe actually has very little influence/leverage on the A-I conflict (snip) You may be shocked to believe that a lot of people think America's support for Israel is part of the problem

The first is disputable, the last part common knowledge.

For instance, Bush's refusal to apply any pressure at all (snip)

Agreed. See my post #183 where I said so

Not once have I heard anyone, for one second, suggest that the Falklands case offers a 'clear parallel' for the current crisis in the Middle East! (snip) But I'll say again- what would be the response of the US if Argentina attacked Guam?

We'd beat the crap out of Argentina. No doubt about it. But we wouldn't do that and then say Israel holding territories it gained via war is inherently wrong. That's my point.

where is the Palestinian Gandhi, Mandela or MLK?

The primary observation is that no such peacemaker has emerged on the Palestinian side and we should think "why?"

I think it shameful that Israel gets no credit for having a Peace Now movement, for having a legal system and advocates that however imperfectly try to protect Palestinian rights. Their enemies have no equivalents protecting Jews or other minorities. This is another IMO proof of anti-Israel bias.

I agree- if people want to explore the strategic achievements of the recent conflict without any moral context I am more than happy. I have asked several times...but no one seems willing to state the benefits of this war

I didn't say "no moral context", I objected to "one-sided moral context in the form of the thread". And, I did state the "benefits" such as they are.

Basically this amounts to 'admit you are wrong' and 'it's just you who is biased'

Not at all. As I said before, we all should do sincere self-evaluation

I hope you also appreciate (snip)
I too hope this is my last post on this subject...once again

Understood and in the spirit in which its offered, and Nitey nite.

[pigeonmeister]

To clarify the "wife beating" metaphor; it represents a question that admits guilt regardless of how you answer. "Did you beat your wife today?" is a yes/no question that acknowledges that you beat your wife either way you answer. Also known as a "loaded" question.

Also, as a side note, not all of us have participated in inflammatory rhetoric here; please don't include me with Slim.

Thanks for the explanation- it's not a metaphor I have come across before in Europe. I see now that my initial question was probably, and I think unconsciously, phrased in a manner that made it very hard to present an alternative to my own interpretation. Mea Culpa.

For the record, though I disagreed with some of your regional analysis, I found your posts constructive in tone and logic....I certainly wouldn't include your rhetoric with Mr Slim's.

[pigeonmeister]

This actually does not surprise me at all. I've attempted to engage in a little political debate on other forums in the past (not such controversial subjects as this, mind you) and it was a few posts in before it turned ugly. Much uglier than this.

We're quite spoiled here to have a pretty good group of level-headed people here. Almost all of the debate here has been very well thought out and has logic behind it, regardless of the accusations of rhetoric we make on here.

It's a very good place to get your political debating itch satisfied.

I think the message is clear- step aside George Mitchell...we should send a delegation from fencing net.

I would actually go as far to say that the quality of poster on f-net, most of whom are sensible enough to give this thread a wide berth, is generally very high. There are some very skillful and erudite people. I found the same thing when I have visited various fencing clubs in Charlottesville, Richmond, Atlanta and DC. Clearly we are the most intelligent sporting community

I am constantly amazed at the awful standard of posting on other sites- Even, in fact especially, sites devoted to foreign policy and current events. The worst, I have to say, often come from the left or the rampant pro-Palestinian side. I often think conservatives are more skilful debaters. But I will say it is quite a (lonely) challenge to present an opposing view on this issue on a US forum.

Jeff, I take your point on the universal responsibility of self-analysis and on many of the other issues you raise. It is very disappointing that a credible peace movement had not emerged in Palestine...and to Israel's credit that one, albeit often marginalised, has there. From the people who I have met who have worked extensively in 'Palestine', and reiterated in an excellent book by Jason Burke I have today finished, is the vast majority of people don't want conflict with Israel, are generally moderate and just want a better life.

I think Hamas, like Hezbollah, were successful in filling a social vaccum that allowed them to become very visible distributers of aid, social provision and even education (which also amounts to a degree of indoctrination). This is partly why I think it is in Israel's interest to encourage economic development. I acknowledge the obstacle of corruption amongst Palestinian leaders as well.

I am glad that the tone has now become friendly...

[TrainingDummy]

This may be somewhat tangential, but it's worth noting that some Israelis celebrated the 9/11 attacks: http://www.historycommons.org/contex...01fiveisraelis

The fact that these men weren't kept for years in Gitmo speaks volumes, I think, about the way the US gives the benefit of the doubt to Israel and her citizens. US officials are even talking about releasing Pollard, who went rogue and spied for Israel. A spy is a spy - if the data had been given to Pakistan I doubt this man would have a serious shot at a commuted sentence.

[jeff]

This tweaked my curiosity, so I really had to go look at the cited link and its links. According to the ABC article, a woman in Jersey City saw these guys taking movies during 9/11 from a roof, looks at them through her binoculars and "They were like happy, you know". FBI grabs the guys, and long story short concludes they may have been Israeli spies, but the question is who are they spying on.

From the ABC article at http://web.archive.org/web/200208021...an_020621.html

"many people in the U.S. intelligence community believed that some of the men arrested were working for Israeli intelligence. Cannistraro said there was speculation as to whether Urban Moving had been "set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area."

Under this scenario, the alleged spying operation was not aimed against the United States, but at penetrating or monitoring radical fund-raising and support networks in Muslim communities like Paterson, N.J., which was one of the places where several of the hijackers lived in the months prior to Sept. 11. ..... Sources say the Israelis were targeting these fund-raising networks because they were thought to be channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, groups that are responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Israel. "[The] Israeli government has been very concerned about the activity of radical Islamic groups in the United States that could be a support apparatus to Hamas and Islamic Jihad"

another quote from the article is "Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

So, maybe these guys were Israeli spies, but I don't see anything implicates them in 9/11, though a quick perusal of Google found repeats of the original cited article and a lot of conspiracy theory talk. More important, the FBI and CIA didn't either. And IMO, Pollard can rot in jail forever.

[TrainingDummy]

So, maybe these guys were Israeli spies, but I don't see anything implicates them in 9/11, though a quick perusal of Google found repeats of the original cited article and a lot of conspiracy theory talk. More important, the FBI and CIA didn't either. And IMO, Pollard can rot in jail forever.

I know you didn't say this, but I want to make sure no one thinks that I'm implicating Israel or Jews in general in the 9/11 terror attacks. There is no evidence that Jewish people were involved in the attacks and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Agreed on Pollard.

[jeff]

Yup, I think we're in sync.

[Inquartata]

It is almost impossible for me to respond point by point to so much.

TELL me about it!

Perhaps most disturbing is Inq's native American analogy- whom he asks Gazans to learn from. Seems that the very obvious lesson he thinks precient to the Native American condition is that white America was so successful in destroying their claim to the land, so devestating in their military response to armed rebellion, so dishonourable in their 'peace negotiations' and so unwilling to respond to any of their claims or needs- that they were literally battered into submission. Wow- perhaps Israel should just offer total capitulation or annihilation..that might work.

The lesson, in fact, is the one I specified: Native American reservations are not "besieged" or blockaded. They are not surrounded by armed troops, walls, minefields or closed checkpoints. And their residents are not mistrusted and restricted whenever they emerge from them. This is because they do not mount attacks on neighboring communities.

The Palestinians should try it. For a change. And then maybe open some casinos.

What I find most ridiculous is this myth that all that needs to happen for the Arab-Israeli conflict to be solved is for Hamas to respect Israel's right to exist.

And to quit electing terrorists to office, and to quit abetting them in their indiscriminate violence against civilians...

Doesn't that sound like more civilized behavior to you? Do you think maybe it might be more productive than a succession of intifadas?

I don't believe it is particularly useful to view Hamas as a proxy of Iran.

OK. Let's view the mullahs as so many misunderstood Gandhis instead. Where does that get us? Where does self-delusion get us?


i

[QUOTE]

There are generally two sides to an agreed cease-fire. Did Israel have no responsibility to maintaining its terms?

So, give me an example of an Israeli violation which was not occasioned by a Palestinian one...

I simply cannot see how the war in Gaza was a better alternative to the continuation of the ceasefire. What more has it achieved. Help me see the light, Inq...

Several top Hamas and Al Aqsa leaders dead. Numerous Hamas "soldiers" dead. Tunnels and weapon stockpiles destroyed. General disruption and confusion sown amongst Israel's enemies. Those seem like useful achievements to me...

The UN and International Court of Justice consider the settlements illegal- obviously they are nothing but jew hating racists- at least that I assume is your response. But actually the settlements are even illegal under Israeli law.

You do, I trust, recall that Israel removed---by force---all of the settlers from Gaza, and razed the settlements before withdrawing from the area?

And the Palestinian response? More attacks. More rockets. More mortars. Cross-border kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

Well, THAT sort of thing will clearly motivate further concessions from Israel...

Inq stated that most of the "civilian" population of Gaza are willing accomplices in the attacks.

I suppose that there are probably a few who are not...in the same numbers that there are wrongly convicted men in prison, I suspect.

They elected the preeminent group of attackers to political power over them! What more proof do you need?

Can we at least stop the long posts or somehow end this cycle of time consuming rebuttals?

Magic Eight Ball says "Don't count on it".

My position is that Israel were wrong to start this war- it was not necessary and was excessive in force.

So what is your alternative to stop the rockets? ( And don't say "Open the borders", because the borders were closed in the first place because of attackers crossing into Israel over one border and bringing in arms across the other, and Hamas has given no indication that things would be otherwise this time. Not to mention the peril in giving an attacker what he wants---I remind you again about the results of removing the settlements from Gaza, which Hamas had also long demanded. )

If my neighbor comes into my yard and punches me in the nose, I suppose that defending myself could be called "unnecessary and excessive" by some. But I suspect that it would only encourage him to redouble his efforts.

Recall your school days. Did you observe many kids having much success reasoning with bullies?

[Lemonaide]

Not been around for ages- but pretty amazed there has been no comment on this conflict. I realise this is a difficult issue to engage with on a US forum, or in fact any forum. I also gave up spending valuable hours of my life debating the major issues in the various Middle East conflicts here years ago.

With that in mind, I would just like to discuss the central strategic, rather than moral or even political, questions. Fundamentally, is there a realistic military solution available for Israel?

1. Is regime change achieveable through military action- even in conjunction with wider and more nuanced policies vis a vis selective engagement with Fatah? Is it even being pursued?

2. Will this action undermine support for Hamas within Gaza?

3. Will this action make the Israeli population, mainly in the south, more secure (fewer rockets fired)?

DEAR PIGEON:
Here is the rap:
The regime won't change in any which way,
cause the system is rapped tight since the very first day,
it's all the same where ever you live,
its all corrupt, and filled with grime,
it's the classic case of good against crime,
they say crime doesnt pay,
but it pays a lot, they set them free,
and pay their way, with jobs and homes
and a come what may,
oh say can you see,
by the dawns early light,
that the haughtly proud roam,
while the rest of us fight.
Its pit this against that,
and they're masters at that,
so there's one way out and that's not to take sides,
you know if we do,
they'll take it out of our hide,
let them scream and shout,
but keep our people here,
we wish all the best, but let them figure it out.
We have levees to fix, and bridges to build,
Trees to plant and farmland to till,
we have cows to milk and cattle to feed,
and we've let it go, and it looks like weeds.
We have to scrape up the cumbles, and
tear down the crap,
Sew up our own clothes and bake our own bread,
Build up a plan to take charge of this land,
what happens in Gaza is beyond our control,
we did our best thinking,
but if it doesn't come from them
it won't work.