Israel: Baby Killers

I hope people don't find this too inflammatory but I must say that the following is extremely disturbing and makes my blood boil. From todays' AP:


"An Israeli warplane attacked a crowded, rundown Gaza City neighborhood early yesterday, killing a leading Hamas militant and at least 11 other Palestinians, including several children...Shifa hostipal in Gaza City released a list of 11 dead...[it] included two babies, aged 2 months and 18 months, six children ages 3-11 and three adults..."


Simply sickening. Even if one agrees that political killings are warranted in Israel (I don't), this went beyond the bounds of decent behavior. There is certainly no moral high ground in this conflict.


KJS

Suicide bombers have been killing children for 2 years. Why didn't you complain about those deaths?

Could it be you are a terrorist sympathizer?

.....war has no moral high ground. Our government always tells us they try their best to avoid civilian casualties when attacking enemies. Obviously, we don't always succeed. Israel makes similar claims, however, today they let the target take precedence over common sense and decency (not that war can ever be "decent"). However, to be fair, and as pointed out by Harold, suicide bombers, organized almost exclusively by Hamas, the group this terrorist was a leader for, have been killing Israeli children and non-military personnel regularly. Note: Suicide bombings are supported by 68% of Palestinians according to [gasp!] Amnesty International. The god news is this down from 74%. However, after today's tragedy, the good Dr predicts the SBAR (Suicide Bombing Approval Rating) will go up to over 85%.


So the bottom line is: Did Israel feel that anybody in Palestine is worthy of a "decent" act on their part - by decent, I mean holding off on a death strike of a known terrorist to avoid killing innocent? We know the answer - NOPE.


Unfortunately, the death of these innocent Palestinian children are as much at the feet of the Palestinian terrorist ass-holes as they are at the feet of Israel. War sucks. Hate sucks. But sadder yet, Arabs suck. Unless, of course, you think they are our friends or something. I don't. And think about this: If we didn't use Arab oil, would we even care about what happened today? Atrocities worse than this are happening everyday with black-on-black crime in a lot of the African states. Guess what? Nobody cares. Know why? They don't sell us oil. We don't need their monkeys and zebras - so we don't give a rat's ass about what's going on in the dark continent. And surprise, surprise - neither does Reverend Jesse of Fat Al Sharpton, phony black crusaders. But I betcha if we needed African oil we'd be all over these horror stories. So unfortunately KJS, I feel your outrage is very selective. While I applaud you for posting, I do not feel you have thought this all the way through.

Both are equally abominable. There is no logical moral code whereby one could be a rationalization for the other. Both parties are acting with blatant disregard for the most fragile innocent members of the other population.


If you search the archives of this site you will undoubtedly find that I have made statements against those who commit suicide bombings. I think they are very very bad people. But, my government does not send them millions of dollars in aid daily. Therefore, I find it more disturbing when the state of Israel, a member state of international bodies, commits acts of war that they must know will result in the deaths of innocent children. (Acts they excuse because some of the dead were parties to killing their innocent civilians). If they are going to act with the same disregard for human life as their enemies, I think my government should treat them similarly. That means cut them off from material and financial support and condemn them publicly for their actions.


KJS

Israel has a history of committing political assassinations that result in the death of only the targeted individual (ie, shootings and exploding cell phones). I disagree with the use of these as opposed to arrest and detainment but recognize that they feel justified in using them. In this case they made an effort to take out many many more people by FIRING ON A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBHORHOOD FROM A WARPLANE! That alone crosses a line, IMO. When I read that such actions resulted in the death of a 2 month and 18 month old I am incensed. There is no possible rationalization for such an attack, in my opinion.


KJS

"Could it be you are a terrorist sympathizer? "


This is an unfair response to KJS's post. He broght up a topic that is controversial and difficult for well intentioned intelligent people. To accuse him of being a terrorist sympathizer based on his disgust of babies being killed is wrong. One of the reasons that our country has supported Israel is that they are a modern democracy and thus can claim a higher moral ground than the undemocratic countries in the region. That aside, it is fair to hold Israel to some standards. Israelis themselves disagree on Israeli policy and actions, and those Israelis who disagree are not terrorist sympathizers. I get sick every time I see a suicide bomber killing Israelis. I tend toward siding with Israel in the whole affair. But I didn't like seeing babies blown up by Israel either. It made me a little sick. Yeah, non-combatants get hurt in wars etc..., but when that stops affecting you, you need to take a real close look at your moral outlook. Ideally we can improve civilization to the point where people don't kill one another over irrational religious disputes. For that to happen, we have to have people in the world who don't like seeing babies killed.

It is tragic but let me ask you a question: Just how is Israel supposed to get these guys who orchestrate repeated deadly attacks upon their innocent civilians, when these guys hide amongst the civilian population? It's a bit like Saddam putting missile batteries inside hospitals or under mosques, using them to shoot at US planes, then crying to the world that we are attacking hospitals and mosques.


I'm sickened by the whole thing too, but just how is Israel supposed to get the guys who keep sending out suicide attack teams???

Not a really close analogy but you get the point. Perhaps a bit better analogy would be the Taliban and al-Qaeda were employing similar tactics in Afghanistan.


The leaders of the militant arm of Hamas are responsible for a great many suicide bombings on Israeli civilians, and they are basically commtitted to continue, as they have long avowed, until Israel is DESTROYED. I don't like Israel's tactics any better than you but as everyone can see, if Israel does NOTHING, Israel gets attacked with violence. If Israel does ANYTHING, Israel gets attacked with violence. Hamas has long been publicly committed to sabotaging ANY peace process with violent attacks and they have proudly proclaimed this for a long time (the recent offer to "consider" ceasing attacks if Israel withdraws may be disingenous--they only said they would "consider" it. And the history of Hamas belies that one sheik's recent words.


So I ask you again, just how is Israel supposed to stop these guys or get them? There HAVE to be some innocent casualties in a war, but at least Israel isn't TARGETING those who are purely innocent. They TARGETED one of the worst bad guys there is who, as usual, was surrounded by his family or cohorts. That militant Hamas leader BROUGHT IT ON HIS OWN FAMILY. While I sympathize with the other victims in this case, let's put it all in perspective too.


Another point: If the Palestinians lay down their arms, the violence would cease. If Israel lays down its arms, it will be destroyed. This can be seen through the history of Israel---ever since its inception it has been attacked by Arabs, yet it has never attacked them except in response/self-defense.

KJS: "Both are equally abominable. There is no logical moral code whereby one could be a rationalization for the other."


This is, IMO, an untrue assertion.


How about in self-defense???

Fine. Maybe it would just be better to just use NATO to help the Israelis round up all the militant leaders over there and shoot them all in the village square. Then give the Palestinians their homeland with an electrified Berlin Wall around it.

What you have to realize is that these attacks, in one form or another, HAVE NEVER CEASED.


Let some country try that on the US and see what happens. Or let them try it against your own home state, KJS, on a continual basis, and see how fast you scream for stopping them by any means necessary. I'll put the over/under for you at 3 attacks.

...and if you live in a huge state, make that your own home city. Now the over/under is 2 attacks.

You are a terrorist sympathizer.

Like the conflict itself,there will be no 'winner'.

Maybe just try to recognise a Palestenian state.

" Even if one agrees that political killings are warranted in Israel (I don't).."


First off Israel attacking the operations manager of the main terrorist organization that is coordinating, arming and planting the homicide bombers is not a political killing. It is self defense when one of these lead terrorists are found and killed.


My problem is with Israeli Intelligence in that they knew this man was in the house. They repeatedly stated that they knew he was in the house. They had to know he was in the midst of children. There can be no justification for killing innocents, young or old. I just can't fathom a human being knowing that if he pulls the trigger, children will die and yet he does..fire a rocket into a family's quarters .. having decided the hit was worth the massacring of babies.


Israeli intelligence should rid themselves of people that think the killing of children is warranted for ANY reason. And that is exactly the decision they made when the fired their rockets into that house.

let's assume that this guy would not be easily or soon captured if they did not fire at the time they had intelligence that he was in the house. After all, if it was easy to catch these guys Israel would have caught them all long ago. Let's also assume that wherever he is, he will probably be surrounded with people. And let's further assume that if they don't capture or kill him soon, he will soon be launching more suicide bombings on Israel which will kill many Israeli children and adult civilians (a reasonanble assumption since he is after all a chief militant leader). OK, that's a lot of assumptions, and I really don't know if they are completely founded or not. But if they are true, then it becomes much less certain that the Israeli action is in no way justifiable.


The US had the chance to kill Omar and bin-Laden, but for certain reasons could not authorize the airstrike on their convoy near the beginning of the Afghanistan war. So now we don't know if we got them or not and it is pretty certain that Omar is still alive.


I'm not saying that I know whether this recent action by Israel was justified or not; only that I don't have all the facts and I think it is a mistake to assume that they have to be completely wrong in this matter. I also feel that KJS is wrong when he puts this on precisely the same level as the suicide attacks themselves. After all, there is something to be said for self-defense.


If thee is a way to get all these leaders without much collateral damage, I'd like to see it. But recall that when Israel went into the other areas and arrested many militants a few months ago, there were still many casualties, some from rifle fire on both sides. So it isn't as simple as just sending the police to pick these guys up--no matter how Israel goes about it there will be casualties among people in the areas.

Israel was not in any way threatened by the 2 month and 18 month old children killed in this attack, so I don't think their deaths can be justified as self defense. Knowingly killing children is abhorrent and not justifiable IMO. It is especially disgusting considering they were killed due to their relation to someone killed because of his role in killing civilians. Face it: Israel believes in an eye for an eye approach to this conflict. As low as their enemies sink, they will sink. This incident proves that. They have no credibility in regards to the rules of conflict that govern military conflicts among nation states and should be treated as a rogue nation, IMO. Bush strongly condemned this attack today. I would encourage him to halt foreign aid (2.1 billion dollars annually, most of which is used to buy US military equipment) to Israel immediately. We should not ally ourselves with people who knowingly target babies.


KJS

Israel has to do everything in their power to destoy as many members of the hamas and other such organizations as possible. Israel is totally in the right. Let me put it this way- people are going to keep on dying in both or these places (Israel and palestine), but the leaders of each of these respective places have a duty to THEIR own people. Yasser Arafat and the other palestine leaders are just fu#ked up terrorists who SPECIFICALLY TARGET regular Iraeli civillians. Sharon and the Israeli Gov't have a duty to do what they can to save as many of their people as possible and if that means blasting a few kids who are probably going to grow up to be terrorists themselves, then so be it. I commend Israel for standing up for its people and not taking shit from these bastard terrorists. If these palestinian assholes would quit bombing Israel then things would be different, but as of now, I think the Israeli's sould be proud of their government. If some rogue nation was attacking us at the pace that Israel is being attacked, I would hope that our government would do everything in its power to protect Americans even if the tradeoff is a bunch of dead civillians of the rogue nation. Life isn't fair but if you have the means to preserve your life at the expense of others then that's what's gotta be done. It's survival of the fittest in this crazy world.

Finally, I always find it amazing that the bleeding hearts always seem to say "yeah suicide bambings are bad....but". They always put a but there. WTF are you guys kidding?!? If it was up to these sons of bitches every single American and Jew would be dead in the entire world, how can anybody have any sympathy for the hamas and other such organizations?


Bottom line: Israel is in the right and I think it's outrageous that people try to give them flack for simply protecting themselves.


Kris

Well it's easy for you to say from our safe little nest here in the USA, but I'd still put the over/under at two attacks on your own hometown before you would be screaming for it to be stopped by ANY means necessary.

Goat: "If some rogue nation was attacking us at the pace that Israel is being attacked, I would hope that our government would do everything in its power to protect Americans even if the tradeoff is a bunch of dead civillians of the rogue nation."


Damn right.

"How about in self-defense?"


That's the beauty of claiming self-defense, who can argue against merely wanting to defend onerself? That's why each side is claiming "self-defense."

I suppose the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in self-defense too. Prove they didn't.

...a post from you entitled: PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS: BABY KILLERS? Just wondering.

.....the PA is a terrorist scumbag organization and only a super scumbag COWARDLY terrorist would hide in a building with woman and children like this Hamas A-hole - or a church like those other Palestinian scumbags did. As the Israeli press minister said: "It was obvious the PA wasn't going to do anything about the Hamas heirarchy"

....even though I disagree with KJS's position, I'm glad he posted. Takes balls and props to KJS as well. Just don't take the jabs and barbs seriously......it's a volatile subject

....while I hate these Arab bastards with a passion, there is no justification for INTENTIONALLY shooting a missile at a house with kids in it. NEVER. Now, if we believe an Israeli spokesperson, they had info this house was unoccupied except for this Hamas clown and his buddies.


A question: How long has Israel known this guy was there and, if they've known for a while, but only struck last night thinking they finally had a 'clear' shot at him, then it would take on a different tone as a true accident of war vs a slaughter of civilians. Just food for thought....

...as I stated above, they do not receive billions of US foreign aid (read: my tax dollars). They are (as they should be) condemned world wide and targeted as a threat to international peace and stability (as they should be). Israel, on the other hand, is lauded by many as a stand-up nation for its democratic ideals, free elections, etc.. They are given most favored trading status, in addition to unparalleled allegiance and military and financial support by the United States. Therefore, I think they should be help to a very high standard. Yesterday they exhibited that their approach to the current situation is to ignore what I see as a moral obligation to avoid purposely targeting innocent children. That puts them on a par with their enemies, who similarly target innocent Israelis. Since we treat the Palestinians who do this with a scorn reserved for the worst of the worst, and do everything in our power to not aid and abet them, we should similarly withdraw our aid to the Israelis for their role in purpetrating an attack on Palestinian babies, thus duplicating the horrific acts (killing civilian non-combatants) that they ask us to help them stop. Until they stop stooping to the moral lows of their enemies they are no better and should be treated with equal scorn. That is my belief as someone who cherishes human life and hopes that this belief is felt by those who have the power to eliminate lives at will.


KJS

They shot a two ton rocket into the midsts of a crowded neighborhood in the middle of the night, reducing several houses to rubble, killing 12 and wounding 150 people. There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that they had should have known the damage to human life that ensued by their reckless and callous launching of that rocket.


And Sharon has lost all credibility after being made aware of the deaths of children and having the audacity to characterize this operation a "success".

As related to other posts in this thread, it's all very easy to say from HERE. Out of the immense number of attacks upon Israel, and of their many responses, most have been very controlled...even restrained. You are putting them at the lowest level in your mind based upon one incident? It sounds like you are not only holding them to overall high standards (which is fine) but are also expecting perfection from them with no room for error. Try imagining yourself running a cvountry and coordinating defenses against all these attacks, and responses to these attacks, and see if your army never makes an error or crosses what would be considered decent boundaries. It just isn't possible to be perfect while under fire. For the most part Israel has historically exhibited massive restraint considering the history of endless attacks , both from suicide bombers and from other countries.


If someone attacks you in a dark alley, can you be sure you will use ONLY enough force to end or to control the encounter? Probably not. You might go too far in self-defense. Now multiply this by hundreds or thousands of attacks and consider coordinating efforts within your forces and chain of command, etc. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to never cross the line in self-defense, totally IMPOSSIBLE. yet you are willing to throw them entirely on their own resources, based, apparently, on this one incident.

well, how many Palestinian lives were lost in Jenin where Israel tried to do most everything on foot? I agree its sad and sickening--I'm just not convinced the results wouldn't be as bad or worse by any other approach

There is no differentiating between Hammas and Israel when both launch deadly attacks that they KNOW will kill children. What Israel stands to lose by this mindless attack is to be seen as no better than the terrorists they will go to any lengths to eradicate. The are diminishing the lines of who's right and who's wrong by sinking to the level of the homicide bombers.

The reason that most of the sane world is fighting these terrorists is because they attack the innocent in the furtherment of their cause. Israel, in my opinion, did the same damn thing on Monday. They were cognizant of the fact that a two ton rocket launched into a populated neighborhood in the middle of the night would most certainly target innocent people asleep in their beds. I believe whomever was in charge of that operation came to the tragic conclusion that the ends justified the means. And therein lies the thinking of all terrorists.

well one difference might be that the Palestinians would have done it had they known that there would be ONLY children there. The Palestinians don't need a major target such as a political or military figure (who might be in the midst of others). They are happy merely to kill the others, so I see that there is still yet a difference.


There is also a difference in that it is the Palestinians who are continuing to launch these attacks--as mentioned elsewhere, if they stopped, Israel would stop too. But if Israel stops, the Palestinians will continue sending suicide bombers frequently as they have done during the entire 2 year intifada. So while it is all revolting, it isn't truly equivalent.

"..holding them to overall high standards.." ??

To expect Israel to not murder children in their beds so that they can also assisinate a leading terrorist is not too much to ask.

it might be ALMOST the same thing (or it might not) but at least they had a valid target. The Palestinians, on the other hand, don't need ANY target other than a young girl at her birthday party.

You're out of your mind. You are trying to justify the killing of children. There is no such justification ever, either by the Palestinian terrorists or the Israeli military. PERIOD.

well the USA bombed Khadafy's house and killed (I think) his daughter while he remained unscathed. It was long enough ago that I don't recall much of the details, but I don't remember thinking at the time that it necessarily HAD to be 100% wrong, given the evil that Khadafy was working against us.

To say that killing innocents in the pursuit of killing terrorists is understandable and or justifiable is ludicrous. It does not benefit nor further the cause of any nation to be involved in the INTENTIONAL murder of innocents.

It only leeches from them the credibility of any civilized nations.

I guess that means you think that there was no justification for some German children dying in WWII either? It would be nice if war was 100% clean, but it isn't, and it's also messy, and collateral damage occurs.


Let's say during WWII we knew that Adolf Hitler's top 3 henchmen were all holed up at a relatives' house on a certain day, prior to moving on the next day. Would we have been wrong to bomb THAT HOUSE, that night? Of course it isn't a parallel situation, but I'm just questioning the certainty you seem to express that it isn't EVER OK in wartime.

The Nazi doctor Mengele tried to justify and explain that his murderous torture of jewish children was for the greater good of a future generation of germans. That was bs too as is your argument.

Well if we were to accept that policy, then all terrorists would have to do is be ALWAYS near some innocents and then they can be assured that they will never be bombed. In fact they pretty much do this already.


Israel's responses do leech credibility in the eyes of other nations. However just imagine that the terrorists are suicide bombing right here in the good old USA. The closer it gets to home, the more willing we would be to see some innocents die if it means getting those who are persistently attacking us. Especially if it's happening right across the street or next door. And in Israel, that's pretty much what IS happening.

well his argument was bs.


I don't think you can accurately make a blanket statement that some innocents dying along with the perpetrators of suicide bombings ALWAYS has to be 100% wrong. What about the bombings of German bases, etc. Surely some innocents died that way too? Does that mean we shouldn't have bombed Germany at all?

the US has been donating millions per year to the PA, and some of that money ended up going to fund Palestinian terrorism

"If the time ever comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily."


-Ahad Ha'am, 1891


The Zionist dream has turned into a nightmare because it was flawed from the beginning: there were already people living on the land. A modus vivendi with the Palestinian Arabs was never part of the Zionist or Israeli agenda.


It was the Jewish terrorists who introduced into the area what is now the standard equipment of modern terrorism: the camouflaged bomb in the market place and bus station, the car and truck bomb, and the drive-by shooting with automatic weapons.


None of this excuses or justifies in any sense the killing of civilians by Palestinian murderers. But there is a history that cannot be ignored as part of the explanation of why the Palestinians hate the Jews.


The only language either side understands, apparently, is violence. Herzl would be ashamed and the Palestinians should be too. There's nothing close to any moral high ground to be found in the continuing sad and tragic history of both peoples.

us is going under martial law. military is to be given police powers (one article said they would not have arrest powers, just power to use lethal force).


JCS on nightline stated that if we didnt have enough troops we might have to use 'foreign assets' to patrol america.


bottom line: expect things JUST LIKE THIS to happen right here in america, land of the security state, and home of the terrified take my rights and keep me safe.


brad

"I suppose the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in self-defense."


In 1941 (July I think) the United States began an embargo on the shipment of oil to Japan.


(1) Japan's government viewed the oil embargo as an act of war!


(2) In reaction to this 'act of war' they felt Japan had a right to defend itself.


This WAS their argument.

while i could care less about israeli/arab issues that dont affect US and me, i heard one interesting tidbit on talk radio.


you know how they bomb discos and stuff like that (nightclubs and stuff)? well, it was mentioned that there are a lot of soldiers (since they have money to spend) in such places.


not that i think its right or anything, (obviously its wrong), but i find it interesting.


brad

'The US had the chance to kill Omar and bin-Laden, but for certain reasons could not authorize the airstrike on their convoy near the beginning of the Afghanistan war.'


im sure it had nothing to do with the fact that OBL was/is a CIA operative.


brad

Supposedly they're now going to free the CIA up from restrictions that have kept them from dealing with "bad guys" in recent years.


You really think OBL is still a "CIA operative?" Back in 1999, Clinton was blaming him for everything and getting Bin Laden was our primary policy objective in Afghanistan.

you realize that the new definition of 'war' seems to be -- anything they say it is.


think of Waco. they were terrorists. we had to do what we had to do. it was war.


yeah, it was war.


btw, read that a national guard tank battalion is being activated for the war on terrorism (in alabama). who do you think those tanks are going to be firing on?


brad

well, you agree that he was (which is obvious and provable).


im just saying that the air force had him in their sights numerous times but let him get away.


btw, you read about the airlift where all the top taliban leaders were flown out of afganistan to pakistan, right? by the USAF. but the administration said it was a mistake.


lots of mistakes.


brad

what, maybe 50/50? a book about mossad and how they do dirty tricks. who knows?


http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/libya.html

cia officials met with bin laden in a hospital in dubai (sp?) in july 2001. maybe august. bbc, times of london, etc.


i can get some links if you want.


brad

It's encouraging to witness such colossal ignorance displayed on a Poker website. People who have read or studied or learned very little, if at all, about the Middle East or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, are posting with all the authority of a terminal $1-2 calling station.


I'm telling you: it restores my confidence that there are lots of suckers out there. Thank you, twoplustwo!

Maybe it's because KJS doesn't help finance Palestinian terrorists but is compelled to finance, like you and I and all Americans, the attack he describes. Just where do you suppose Israel got the bomb that killed those nine kids?


You are suggesting that Americans have the same or greater moral duty to condemn crimes and criminals over which they have little influence instead of identifying and attacking the bad things for which their own government, and those of it's clients, are responsible. This is quite a bit like arguing against punishing or even disarming a murderer on the grounds that other murderers remain at large. It's beneath you.

"Israeli intelligence should rid themselves of people that think the killing of children is warranted for ANY reason."


I agree, but this isn't going to happen as long as the U.S. continues to reward Israel for killing children and other civilians. Here's a striking example: after losing his job as section head of Shin Bet (Israel's internal security police), Uzi Landau was quoted in Ha'aretz (and in C. Hitchens' Nation column) that Israel should do to the Palestinians "what Iraq did to the Kurds." Murder and terrorize them, in other words. Shortly after these comments were published, Sharon appointed Landau as Minister for Internal Security, where he has recently been busy closing the Jerusalem offices of moderate anti-terrorist Palestinians. His elevation to the rank of cabinet minister met not a peep of protest by the U.S. government. Imagine the reaction if Arafat had brought into his cabinet someone who urged similar treatment for Israelis.


Israel has been terrorizing and killing civilians for since it embarked on it's campaign of conquest and colonization in 1967, leaving tens of thousands dead, including some 1500 killed and 17,000 injured since the beginning of the current intifada. What we've seen in the last few days was accidental only because so many bystanders were killed at once that the uproar became momentarily uncontainable, although it will pass within a week.

This is the argument that homicide bombers and their apologists make. Since there isn't any question that Palestinian lands are being attacked and colonized by Israel, a "rogue nation" by the standards of violating UN GA and SC resolutions, you are saying that a "bunch of dead civilians" is an acceptable price if it accomplishes the end desired, that it works.


The better view, IMO, is to draw lines and unequivocally condemn the deliberate or reckless slaughter of civilians, at least until every peaceful avenue has been exhausted. Given that the Sharon government has refused to explore peaceful avenues with the Palestinians, it rightly stands condemned of murder.

Israel DID explore peaceful avenues with them and Arafat walked away from the deal which he says he now wishes he had accepted. Not only did he walk away from it, he started the intifada.

In debating the subject, I think it is worth looking at whose actions are the most morally reprehensible. I think the whole free world should denounce the sick, twisted, misguided actions of the Palestinians...and Amnesty International recently did just that, calling them crimes against humanity and possibly war crimes also.


Just because we support one side which may be partially wrong at times, doesn't mean we shouldn't denounce the greater moral evils perpetrated by the other side.


Suicide bombing and terrorism are possibly the two greatest moral evils in the world today--and it is appalling to see this sick twisted philosophy spreading throughout the world--the philosophy that it is OK to attack innocents in order to make a political statement is EVIL.

The Jews were already living there too, and had been for 3,000 years.


When Britain partitioned the lands they haeld title to, they made provision for a Palestinian land and state. The Palestinian people at that time were basically Jews and Arabs, not "Palestinians" per se. The local Jews were actually designated as "Palestinian" or from "Palestine" on international passports prior to Israel being created, while those we think of today as "Palestinians" were designated as "Arab." After the partitioning of lands took place, Jordan basically stole a sizable chunk of what was to be the new Palestinian homeland. No matter that many of the Palestinians were really Jordanians in the first place. The long-standing hatred of Jews by Muslims, and the religious fanatacism that is present in most of the Islamic world, caused the neighboring Arab states to attack Israel because it stuck in their craw that the hated Jews now had a recognized foothold in their midst.


There was always plenty of land for both Israel and the Arabs to co-exist peacefully side by side, and there would be lots more if Jordan hadn't stolen it. Israel is a tiny state in the middle of vast Arab lands and the Arabs have not overpopulated all of these areas yet...there's still room in the region.


So maybe the idea was flawed from the outset but I think the Jews have at least as much right to that land as the "Palestinians." And there really is room for both to live side by side if they can't get along living together.

Homicide bombers target bodies..period. The recent bus attack in Gaza carried out by Palestinian madmen dressed as Israeli soldiers bears witness to this fact.

These murderers stood on the roof of the bus and fired into the helpless passengers huddled on the floor below them. They killed a baby and another child. These hell-bound bastards intentionally target children because their aim is to provoke as much outrage as they can. One of their aims is to keep so much discord going in the Middle East that every country in the world focuses its attention to their plight. Their plan is backfiring, which underscores the complete lack of constructive leadership the Palestinians have at this moment in history.

Hey Brad, too bad they moved the Unibomber's cabin from where it stood. Sounds like you might be in the market for a lil sanctuary against the evil powers that be in the U.S. Either that or you're paranoid, eh?

I think you're stretching here, M. The bombing of a German base--a military institution--with the resulting collateral damage of civilian deaths is a bit different than blowing up an apartment building just to get one guy. When the civilian casualties outnumber those of the bad guys 14 to 1 (not to mention the number injured), it goes quite a ways beyond being collateral damage.


Matt

I AM stretching there, in order to show that the blanket statement made by desire is not necessarily always valid.


As for the specific justifiability of Israel's actions in this case, I did not say it was necessarily OK...I only said it might possibly be, considering the alternatives available, and that I do not have all the information to be sure. Get it now?

well at least I get my limited information from primarily mainstream, reputable sources, rather than some of the ultra-biased links you and Chris Alger have posted, like the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, and the electronicintifada.com (Chris Alger). Makes me wonder who the sucker really is.

"I get my limited information from primarily mainstream, reputable sources, rather than some of the ultra-biased links you and Chris Alger have posted, like the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, and the electronicintifada.com (Chris Alger). Makes me wonder who the sucker really is."


If you care to visit some of my sources, you should check my post starting a new thread, that details some of the books I recommend and how you can locate them. Of course, all these books are written by the bloodied hands of gap-toothed towel-head Ayrab terrorists, and are printed in caves by the Anti-American Holy Mackerel Jihad Society.


...Check 'em out, just for laughs.

You can go to sleep now, eLROY. Your conscience not gonna bother you.


It's all their fault.

actually I think it's somewhat more the fault of the neighboring Arabs than most people would believe. For instance, if Jordan hadn't swiped that land from their Muslim brothers, the Palestinians would have a lot more territory now.


The poor Palestinians. They even get kicked by the all the other Arabs, but at least those guys cheer them on when they're fighting Israel.

No one should play in the same ring game with you unless you have been frisked at the door for bombing necklaces, and other firearms.


You are a criminal that supports money laundering , tax evasion, fraud, loan sharking, pimping and the human slavery trade by your afiliations, and the way you make your living.

Amnesty International's denouncement of homicide bombings as war crimes is right on the money, just as Human Right Watch's denouncement of the IDF actions in Jenin as war crimes is right on the money. But you consistently only denounce the crimes of official enemies while glossing over or minimizing the crimes of official friends. It's a stark moral contradiction.


"Just because we support one side which may be partially wrong at times, doesn't mean we shouldn't denounce the greater moral evils perpetrated by the other side."


Israel being "partially wrong?" Just what is "partially right" with the IDF imprisoning and killing civilians for the cause of colonizing the West Bank and Gaza? This isn't something it does "at times," but continuously for 30 years.

The PA never walked away from negotiations: they begged for them to continue but Sharon refused to consider it. The only "deal" Arafat said he'd accept was Clinton's, not Israel's, who never during the last round of talks put a written offer on the table.

I don't entirely agree with the colonizing, and I would like to see a homeland for the Palestinians which includes much of the occupied territories. However Israel does have a side to even this issue: specifically, that they have ALWAYS been attacked by their neighbors and they need something of a buffer zone. You know, maybe they really do, considering the history of Arab attacks upon Israel. And maybe Jordan should just give back the land it stole and the Palestinians would have plenty of land.

"The Jews were already living there too, and had been for 3,000 years."


This is simply not true. There was a miniscule Jewish population and a massive Arab Palestinian population. The Jews had not had a physical presence in Palestine for approx. 2,000 years. Herzl wasn't even set on the idea of Palestine for the Jewish state; he considered Uganda and was open to other locations.


The Zionists came to Palestine as an agent of European colonialism, intending to redeem what they saw as the barren and backward land for European civilization. This is how Herzl tried to sell Zionism to every European country who would give him an audience, eventually finding success in England.


All of the mandate lands were supposed to be given their independence after a period of time. Only Palestine was denied this, largely because of the conflicting promises England had made to the Jews and the Arabs.


The long-standing hatred of Jews by Muslims had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the problem. Jews had historically had a much easier time of things in Muslim lands than in Christian lands. It was because of the way they were treated in Europe and Russia, not the way they were treated in Muslim lands, that created Zionism. Herzl was particularly driven by the Dreyfus affair in France.


What the Palestinian Arabs objected to was the fact that an alien people were coming onto their land with the intention of taking it over. This is clearly what happened. One only has to look over the population figures in Palestine for the two people from the beginning of the Zionist movement to see this clearly. Herzl didn't even mention the Arabs in The Jewish State .


The Arabs objected to the coming of the Zionists for the same reason the American Indians objected to the coming of the Europeans. The Zionists saw only a horrible wilderness that was home to the fedaleen. The Arabs objected to the settlement of the Jews, forced upon them by a European colonial power from the beginning. The Arab revolt of the 1930s made it clear to the Zionists that they would have to resort to force, both against the Arabs and against the British.


Some 600,000 people or more fled or were kicked out of what had been their homes and their ancestors' homes in 1948. They were not allowed to return and will never be allowed to return because Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. That means you have to be Jewish to have full rights and responsibilities. Israel will not allow a situation where the Jews would not comprise the vast majority of the citizenry. This is why the idea of transfer of the Arabs to other places has always had a high priority in the thinking of Zionist and Israeli leaders.


What is needed now is statesmanship and courage. Both sides need to admit to their culpability for the violence and to recognize each other's existence as people and the need for a homeland for both. Certainly Sharon and Arafat are the wrong people to accomplish anything, perhaps the two worst people we could pick on the face of the earth. One certainly fears that the future will be even more horrible than the past.

Well that's not the way I understand it. Interesting how people can have been exposed to such widely varying historical accounts. One point: of course the Arabs outnumbered the Jews and quite possibly in that area too. After all, the Jews had been somewhat scattered and there are only around 15 million Jews in the world compared to 1.2 billion Muslims. However I do think there was a Jewish presence there for several thousand years especially in and around Jerusalem. I also think the other huge neighboring Arab states could have made a little room for the Palestinians during the partitioning process, rather than stealing some of their partitioned land for themselves. So much for Muslim brotherhood--it only goes so far I guess.

.....and while I couldn't be more politically polarized vs. anyone in this world (other than cyber-sniper-bigot Cyrus) than yourself, Jenin is a bad example and I will tell you why I think this is so:


Amnesty International, probably the most liberal organization outside of the ACLU (and one that personally makes me puke BTW), invalidated it's Jenin finding with it's condemnation of suicide bombings. It's nice to note that AI was VERY QUICK to condemn Israel - lets see, it took about 2 weeks, 3 weeks?? Suicide bombings have been going on for how what - YEARS?? Give me a break. AI will bend over backwards to try to and take Palestine's side, or any other entity that is anti-American or anti-Israel. That they finally had to condemn Palestine's never-ending wanton killing of innocents, or lose any credibility in the world arena (BTW they have none with me!) doesn't alter the fact that it took these liberal scumbags years to formally address something that anyone with 2 eyes has been seeing all along. Now that I'm done with my anti-AI diatribe, I ask this: Why was Israel in Jenin to begin with? Oh, I guess one sunny day Sharon and company just decided to take a little stroll over there with their troops and tanks to show the Palestinians how big and bad they were. Right Chris??


No, they were there BECAUSE OF THE SUICIDE BOMBINGS. They justifiably responded with force to acts of terrorism that even PA supporters such as AI could no longer overlook. Sorry, Chris, Jenin is a bad example.


There is today however a good example you can use. Unlike you, I CAN show balance by saying the F16 attack yesterday was an atrocity. I believe of the posters here, Desire's comments were the most on the mark regarding this incident. And although I threw a "what-if" out there, Sharon's public apology today pretty much scuttles the idea that Israel thought they had a civilian-free shot at the Hamas scumbag. This was an indiscriminate act of terror IMO and deserves the entire world's condemnation. It brings Israel down to the same level as the scumbag terrorists and makes it very hard to continue supporting Israel - despite the fact I hate the Arab terrorist bastards a lot more. It is hard to find a side to coddle up to, but I'll stick with Israel, only because I think they have some voices in their government that will come down on Sharon and his other hard-liners and demand a more moderate, more restrained military. Contrasting this, I have absolutely no faith in terrorist Arafat and his PA thugs. Here's a little question for you and other Arab sympathizers: Arafat's wealth has been publicized lately. His wife has been sent away to Europe - how cozy! What's happened to all the goddamn money the PA has received from the USA over the years? Don't you think a lot of it made it's way into Arafat's back pocket? I do. I'd like to see an independent auditor try tracking those funds down to see how much "aid" went to the average Palestinian man and woman on the street. Also, since it's pretty clear to the average American that the PA has done little to go after the Hamas scumbags organizing these suicide bombings, how many Palestinians, previously working in Israel, have been hurt by the loss of employment due to the step up in terrorist attacks on Israel. Have they been taken care of by the money sent to Palestine? We both know the answer. Palestinians are starving, but scumbag Arafat has lined his pockets and sent his family elsewhere. Hypocrite. Scumbag. Your man Chris. Your man.

This was the argument used by the European settlers: it's a big country, make room for your brethren. But there was not even a term in any of the Indians' languages for "Indian." They were separate peoples. The white man saw nothing wrong with moving them further and further west; after all their brethren could have made a little room for them.


Palestine had been a geographic entity for a very long time and to say that the Palestinians should have been made room for in other Arab lands ignores their relationship to the land they lived in and on. People get attached to their homeland and don't want to live somewhere else because they're forced to do so. Many of the Zionists, when they actually went to Palestine saw this: I quoted Ahad Ha'am; Jabotinsky (spiritual father to the Likud Party) was another.

"they have ALWAYS been attacked by their neighbors and they need something of a buffer zone"


This notion that Israeli-Arab wars are characterize by Israel's mere defense against outside attack is mythological. Except in territories acquired by conquest (and some scud missiles from Iraq in 1990), I am not aware of any Arab state that has struck first militarily against Israel in over 50 years. There was no attack by Arab "neighbors" that instigated Israel's 1956 invasion of Egypt or it's 1978, 1982 and 1993 invasions of Lebanon. The 1973 War was initiated by Egypt, but on territory seized by Israel in 1967. Even the 1967 war, which led to the nearly ubiquitous claim that Israel staved off --in a week -- an aggressive threat to it's survival, was initiated by Israeli air strikes. In the words of Menachem Begin (who nevertheless characterized the war as one of "self-defense"), "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." [NYT, 8/21/82].


The May 1948 attack by Arab states against Israel was a case of clear-cut aggression, but it began only after a 5-month civil war between pre-state Israeli forces and those of the indigenous population of Palestine. The civil war was instigated by a November 1947 non-binding UN resolution that recommended partitioning Palestine so that 37% of the population obtained more than half the land, of which they legally owned only 7%. Imagine Mexican colonists doing the same to Texas, and characterizing a revolt of non-Mexican Texans, later joined by the United States, as a war of aggression against Mexico, and you'll get the flavor of the nutty character of the conventional wisdom (U.S. version) about the Middle East.


"maybe Jordan should just give back the land it stole and the Palestinians would have plenty of land."


Agreed, except for the implication that the Palestinians would have "plenty of land." They already have this, but it's under Israeli occupation. It's interesting, however, that you rightfully condemn Jordan for "stealing" part of Palestine but never use this term with respect to the party that stole the rest of it.

Regardless of your feelings towards Arabs and terrorists, or any other race, racial slurs have no place on this forum. Thanks, Mat.

....Cyrus got me too wound up today. Good work.

Only someone ignorant would compare the actions of a country acting in self defense to the actions of homicide bombers who specifically and deliberately murder innocent civilians (including babies).


I don't know you, but I would bet that if YOUR country was under relentless attacks by homicide bombers for two years, that your attitude toward preventative and defensive actions would be a little different. There is no difference between what Israel is doing and what the U.S. is doing in its war on terror. The actions of both are justified.

"I couldn't be more politically polarized vs. anyone in this world (other than cyber-sniper-bigot Cyrus) than yourself"


Incredibly, this probably isn't true. If we had an argument over basic principles, it would be true, but I think we agree on everything except for the facts.


Most Palestinian intellectuals can't stand Arafat and neither can I. The PA was a corrupt, repressive government from it's beginning. It was also denounced from the beginning by leading Palestinian intellectuals like Edward Said. Notably, neither the U.S. nor Israel paid the slightest regard to the PA's negative character as long as the PA did Israel's bidding. Now that it won't toe the line, we're now seeing the pious calls for the need for internal reform, as if the U.S. and Israel cared about the degree of democracy in Palestine.


"Why was Israel in Jenin to begin with?"


It wasn't only Jeniin and it wasn't only or even primarily about fighting and preventing suicide bombings. The IDF invaded a half dozen West Bank cities, even those with no discernable connection with suicide bombings. The targets were not just suicide bombers and their "infrastructure," but any semblence of Palestinian sovereignty, in keeping with prior attacks on the airport and port in Gaza, and Palestinian security installations throughout the West Bank and Gaza. In April, "the invasion saw daily rounds of blasting entrances followed by ransacking, aimed at everything from the Legislative Council offices to the Ministries of Education, Finance, Agriculture, Trade and Industry to municipal buildings and Chambers of Commerce. . . . alongside the confiscation of computer hard kisks and paper files came the wholesale destruction by sledgehammers or explosives of computers and other equipment, the burning of files and, more bizarrely, the wrecking of bathroom fixtures and upholstery. In a number of cases, feces were left in ministers' offices." "Interregnum: Palestine After Operation Defense Shield," Rema Hammami, Middle East Report, Summer 2002, p. 19. The Economist reported during the invasion about ransacking files and safes (including outright stealing cash) used only for purposes of census and education. Even the mainstream U.S. press reported the ruination of electrical grids and water mains, the wholsesale destruction of civilian buildings unrelated to terrorism and even the running over by tanks of cars that had been parked on sidewalks to make way for the tanks. In other words, the IDF was trying to wreck any semblence of Palestinian autonomy and sovereignty, in keeping with Likud's dictum that Palestinians will never govern the land in which they live. It was very much about showing the Palestinians who's in control. Defeating the militants was the pretext that allowed the IDF to accomplish both goals.

Well B-Man, ya might wanna not speak for Israel on this subject. They admitted their decision to launch a two ton rocket into a family's home, killing nine children in their beds was "flawed".


Don't try and rationalize the killing of innocent children by either side. It is an impossible task.

Well maybe the original idea of an Israel right there was somewhat flawed or imperfect, but at then that leaves the question: where? could anywhere else in the world be considered as a better base for an Israel? I can't think of any spot other than there--and they had been living there for ages, even long before Islam came into existence as a religion.

Israel is a country and exists. Of course no other locations in the world should be considered for a "relocation" of the Jewish state. It's time for courage and statemanship, as I posted before. Otherwise the cycle of violence and hatred, which started over 100 years ago, will continue, sooner or later erupting in another full-scale war. With both sides insisting they're 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, no solution will ever be possible.

I don't intend to suggest a relocation either.


My question was meant to be more hypothetical: back when Israel was formed, was there any other spot that would have been more logical for it, or not?

Yes, I knew your question was rhetorical.


When Israel became a country, of course it was the most logical location. But when Zionism began, England offered a patch of East Africa (the "Uganda offer") while denying the Zionists a stretch of the Sina Peninsula. The proposal created a major controversy within the Zionist movement, ultimately splitting it into two factions, one who favored accepting any territory anywhere (especially since pogroms were being renewed in Russia) and the "Zionists of Zion," who would accept nothing other than Palestine. The Zionist Congress of 1905 formally rejected Uganda, and many of those who had wanted any territory left the movement. Britain's Africa offer was withdrawn, never to come back.


Palestine was "logical" in the sense that many Jews longed for a return to the "homeland." It was illogical in that a large population of non-Jews lived there. In 1881, at the start of the Zionist influx, the population of Palestine was 457,000--about 400,000 Muslims, 42,000 Christians and perhaps as may as 20,000 Jews. The overwhelming majority of the population was Arab.

Big Deal!


Condemn this, condemn that. Oe even better, communicate a deep sense of outrage. Yeah, Chris, that'll get things moving. The whole damned world has condemned Israel and it has accomplished nothing.


Let's use Klatu's solution. Separate the parties and destroy the first that shows aggression. Seems fair. However, if you destroy the side that shows aggression you'll be killing babies, too. How can that be justified? So, let's simply say that all of the mebers of the armed forces wll be destroyed. But, after that those civilians with arms might form a defacto army. So, let's then destroy those with arms. But what if children are carrying the weapons? Whoops!! Can't kill children even if both sides agreed that they would destroy all arms holders.


One of the problems seem to be that the Palestinians, out of total and utter frustration have utizlized one of the only renewable natural resources thay have, people. Soylent green anyone?

"Cyrus got me too wound up today. Good work."


(blush) Thanks!

So what you are saying is intentionally killing innocent people is no worse than accidentally killing innocent people. Yep, that makes a lot of sense.

If you don't know the difference between accidental death and pre-meditated death, then you're the only one on the planet that doesnt recognize the difference. Oh wait..there was John Gotti Sr. When his neighbor accidentally backed over his son, killing him, Gotti didnt recognize the difference either. The man was last seen being strong-armed into a vehicle by known Gotti associates.

Every civilized nation has laws that recognize the difference between accidental and the deliberate murder. I certainly believe that the United States would not intentionally target children for death. And I believe that some very desperate, convoluted and flawed decision making resulted in the deaths of those 15 innocent people the Israelis took out. Israel is painfully aware of the error it is guilty of in that attack. To have buffoons here try to justify it is macabre comedy being played on a 2+2 stage.

I guess my sarcasm was lost on you. What I was trying to say was that there is a HUGE difference between intentionally killing innocents and accidentally killing innocents.


Palestinian homicide bombers repeatedly, specifically and deliberately murder innocent people (including babies). They've blown up teenage girls in discos, mothers and babies on buses, in super markets, the list goes on and on. Surely this is not news to you.


Israel got intelligence on where one of the chief perpetrators is and decided to act on it. They did NOT intentionally kill babies, they intentionally killed a murderer, one of the lowest pieces of sum on the planet. They probably saved dozens or even hundreds of innocent lives by killing him. If he didn't want to die, he should have thought about that before engaging in homicide bombings.


Its unfortunate innocent babies and others died as well. I don't think ANYONE condones the killing of innocent children. But that was not their purpose, and according to Israel, their intelligence did not tell them there were children around.


Furthermore, if you allow scumbags like this to use others as human shields, you will never be able to fight terrorism. Palestinian terrorists are cowards who hide behind innocents. They specifically count on Israel showing restraint in order to survive. Israel finally decided to strike back at this scum, and now there is an uproar.


Its amazing how people like you can look at an individual event without putting it into the context of the larger picture.

You are basing your opinion on the theory that Israel did not know that children were in that house and that they knew that firing that two ton rocket would reduce that populated neighborhood to rubble and ashes..and corpses.

This is a flawed theory, Israel's own condemnation of the attack and admission that they knew more than that terrorist would be killed can be verified by any one of hundreds of independent news sites...including some Israeli news sites. Israeli defense admits that they screwed up. You can keep pointing to the victims of the many homicide bombings, that will never mitigate this heinous attack by Israel.


Two wrongs still don't make a right. Thank God Israel recognizes this fact, albeit a bit late for at least nine children and others.


For you to maintain that Israel did not know there would be children in that WHOLE neighborhood is ludicrous. "Let's launch a two-ton rocket into an apartment complex fully occupied in the middle of the night and hope the only one killed or injured is that dirty rotten bastard we're after."


Get real. They admitted the messed up. I have no problem with every terrorist being stopped..just not by whatever means necessary, i.e. the massacre of innocent people.


When you kill babies you are no better than other people that kill babies...no matter who started it.

The Palestinians and Hamas are 100% responsible for the deaths of the innocent people who were killed along with the terrorist. Israel is not responsible. This is clear under international law (the Geneva Convention).


The following is copied from a column in yesterday's New York Post:

==========================


The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas. Those who are actually fighting the war are not considered "protected persons." Only civilians are granted the status of "protected persons" whose rights cannot be violated with impunity.


The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas and Salah Shehada in one sentence. That sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28. It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."


This sentence appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely to deal with situations like the ones the Israelis faced. Here's how.


The Jewish state is at war with Hamas and Palestinian militant organizations wreaking terrorist havoc. Hamas is at war with Israel.


But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians - the "protected persons" mentioned in 3:1:28 - as living camouflage.


To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances. Again, let's check out that 3:1:28 sentence: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."


There were plenty of "protected persons" around the home of the Hamas leader on Tuesday. He wanted it that way: Salah Shehada chose to live in an apartment house in Gaza City with his family and hundreds of others around him so that they would serve as human shields.


And because Salah Shehada did that, he's responsible for what happens to them. That's what the very next sentence of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: "The party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."


Let's translate: The "party to the conflict" here is Hamas, or more specifically, Salah Shehada. Because Salah Shehada chose to live in a civilian setting, the "protected persons" are deemed to be "in his hands." And since they are in his hands, Salah Shehada "is responsible for the treatment accorded to them."

===========================================


Don't blame Israel for proecting itself. Blame the party that really is at fault, and is at fault for all of the needless deaths of the last two years. Blame the terrorists.

"The Palestinians and Hamas are 100% responsible for the deaths of the innocent people who were killed along with the terrorist. Israel is not responsible."


Israel IS responsible for the deaths of innocent lives in that attack. To blame people that didn't even know or were too young to comprehend the ramifications of having a madman in their midsts for their own deaths is obscene!


Sheesh...I don't care who or what organization tries to justify the murder of babies in their beds. I don't agree with it and the VAST majority of the world does not agree with it. Don't spout Genevea Convention to me. I am not familiar with however archaic their doctrine may be or however flawed your interpretation of said doctrine may be.

I think you should read my post again. I blamed the terrorists, Hamas and the others. I did not say the children were to blame.


Hamas made their bed and now they have to lie in it. You can blame whoever you want, you are entitled to your opinion and you have made it very clear. I agree with you that the killing of innocent people is reprehensible... but you draw no distinction between terrorism and self-defense! If this man was not killed he would have gone on to kill many more innocent individuals--including babies--on top of the dozens he has already murdered!


Should Israel do NOTHING and let him go on murdering its citizens? They were morally and legally justified in killing this man. It is extremely unfortunate that others were killed as well, but that is not Israel's fault. He should not have used others as human shields. I do wish they had used a smaller bomb to minimize injuries to others, and in the future I am sure they will, but the killing of this man was completely justified.


The fact is, if this man was not a murderer and involved in planmning more murderous attacks, this would not have happened. He freely chose his fate, and he brought others down with himself. I feel bad for the others, but not for him.

"What I was trying to say was that there is a HUGE difference between intentionally killing innocents and accidentally killing innocents."


Right, but there's no significant difference (or liability) between premeditated murder and reckless homicide. The IAF fully understood that it was throwing a large bomb into a densely-packed civilian neighborhood. If a policeman sprays a restaurant with bullets and kills 14 innocent bystanders, it's hardly any defense to his recklessness that his intended target was a fugitive murderer. You'd laugh if he defended himself by saying that "it was an accident" and regrets the consequences.


The real issue is whether the people responsible for this event had reason to believe that innocent others were likely to be killed as well. Given the Sharon government's record of creating new provocations whenever Palestinian terrorism shows signs of abating (such as the December cease fire that Palestinian militants observed while the IDF killed and assassinated a score of civilians), I suggest that your taking Israel's pronouncements of "we had no idea this could happen" at face value is naive.


"Furthermore, if you allow scumbags like this to use others as human shields, you will never be able to fight terrorism. Palestinian terrorists are cowards who hide behind innocents."


This is the old double standard: whenever Israel kills civilians, even when accounts of indiscriminate firing and recklessness are uncontradicted and even admitted by the IDF, there must be some way to blame the victim. But Israel gets a pass for doing the same thing to a much worse degree. Here, for example is an excerpt from Human Rights Watch's report on the Jenin war crimes:


"Throughout the incursion, IDF soldiers used Palestinian civilians to protect them from danger, deploying them as ‘human shields’ and forcing them to perform dangerous work. Human Rights Watch received many separate and credible testimonies that Palestinians were placed in vulnerable positions to protect IDF soldiers from gunfire or attack. IDF soldiers forced these Palestinians to stand for extended periods in front of exposed IDF positions, or made them accompany the soldiers as they moved from house to house. Kamal Tawalbi, the father of fourteen children, described how soldiers kept him and his fourteen-year-old son for three hours in the line of fire, using his and his son’s shoulders to rest their rifles as they fired. IDF soldiers forced a sixty-five-year-old woman was forced to stand on a rooftop in front of an IDF position in the middle of a helicopter battle."


Imagine having to watch your 14-year-old son or grandmother being used as human parapets by soldiers during a firefight.


But I take it that people who do this are "scumbags" only when they're Palestinian.

...I am an absolute supporter of Israel I hate the PA and terrorist Arabs bums, but this F16 attack was as flagrant an act of terrorism as any suicide bombing.


I know the cliches: 2 wrongs don't make a right; eye for an eye; Israel was acting in self-defense; Hamas brought it upon themselves; Hamas uses babies as shield; yada, yada, yada. I actually thought there was a chnace that Israel knew where this Hamas bum lived for awhile and acted only when they had information that the building was civilian-free. B-man, this WASN'T the case. The IAF got the target coordinates and indiscriminately fired. You can argue justification and self-defense all you want - THIS ACT by Israel is out and out indefensible. I'm not condoning 1 thing done by the PA, Hamas, and other towel-head terrorists, and don't take their side for even a milli-second. But please don't lower yourself to continue defending this F16 attack. Israel fucked up. Their PM admitted it. Move on. And last but not least, God bless all children - everywhere.

"The real issue is whether the people responsible for this event had reason to believe that innocent others were likely to be killed as well."


No, actually thats not the issue. The Geneva Convention specifically provides that the presence of Protected Persons in the care of militia does not preclude military operations against the militia. Israel's action was legally justified and morally justified. This man was a piece of garbage who long ago gave up his right to live on this Earth. I salute Israel for killing him before he killed others. Its unfortunate that other people had to die in the attack, but this man had to be taken out.


I am curious, do you feel the same way about the U.S.'s attacks against the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan?


"Given the Sharon government's record of creating new provocations whenever Palestinian terrorism shows signs of abating"


That is an outright lie. Could you twist the facts a little more? First of all, every time there is a sign of the terror abating, and there are meetings taking place in the U.S. or elsewhere, it is the Palestinians who sabotage the talks with a new terorist attack. This has happened time and again. Of course Israel responds, but you again are equating self-defense with terrorism. They are not the same.


More importantly, WHY IS IT INCUMBENT UPON ISRAEL not to defend itself, just because talks are going on? What you should have asked is, "Why do the Palestinians continue to use homicide bombers?" The Palestinians could unilaterally declare a cease-fire at any time and end this madness. If they stopped the terrorist attacks, there would be no need for Israel's defensive actions and the violence would be miniscule compared to what it is. The Palestinians started this in Septemeber of 2000, and they can end it at any time if they truly want peace. But the truth is that they do not want peace, they only want to destroy Israel, and that is why the terror continues.

Just to clarify, I never have and never will condone the killing of children, Israeli or Palestinian, and am sorry that children died in this attack.


But I do think that dozens or hundreds of innocent lives were saved by the killing of this man. He has killed many before, and would have killed many more.


Do I wish they used a smaller bomb to minimize civilian casualties? Yes. Was it poor judgement to use such a large bomb? Probably. But was attacking this murdering man justified? ABSOLUTELY.

Actually this specific militant leader of Hamas is thought to be directly responsible for planning the deaths of over 200 Israeli civilians.

....yes, but not this way. If you know where he is, you go in with ground troops or special forces and minimize, if not eliminate the collateral damage. Responsible governments have an obligation to do that. You know that.


You and I (and many other on these pages) will continue to back Israel and denounce the scumbag Hamas and PA. However, don't justify this attack. Israel to its credit didn't. You shouldn't.

It is perverse that a defender of Israel would dare cite the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has resolutely insisted that it has no bearing on it's actions in the occupied territories because the territories were not part of a "recognized sovereign state" when Israel conquered them in 1967, a distinction the entire world disagrees with. Hence UN SC Resolution 1322, adopted in October 2000 by a vote of 14-0 (US abstaining), which "called upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities" under the Fourth Geneva Convention.


The real reason Israel refuses to acknowledge the applicability of Geneva IV is obvious: Israel has violated virtually every significant provision of the convention for decades. Read through Part II of Section III, "Occupied Territories," and try to find a provision that Israel hasn't violated, even though it ratified the convention in 1951 and has pledged to abide by it's humanitarian principles.


According to Amnesty International,


"Amnesty International has frequently expressed its concern that Israel has committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Since the beginning of the intifada more than 700 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces. Most were unlawfully killed; they included at least 150 children and 60 Palestinians who were assassinated. Palestinian detainees frequently suffer torture or other ill treatment under interrogation. At least 34 people are held under administrative detention orders without charge or trial. Hundreds of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories were tried before military courts in trials which fell short of international standards. Collective punishments against Palestinians include closures of towns and villages, demolition of more than 550 Palestinian homes and prolonged curfews."


According to the International Committee of the Red Cross:


"In the course of its activities in the territories occupied by Israel, the ICRC has repeatedly noted breaches of various provisions of international humanitarian law, such as the transfer by Israel of parts of its population into the occupied territories, the destruction of houses, failure to respect medical activities, and detention of protected persons outside the occupied territories. Certain practices which contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention have been incorporated into laws and administrative guidelines and have been sanctioned by the highest judicial authorities." (See also By Amos Harel, Ha’aretz, 3/20/2: "The chief representative for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Palestinian areas has lambasted the Israel Defense Forces’ behaviour toward medical teams in the territories. Rene Kosirnik said on Monday . . . that the army had “wantonly and rudely trampled” all over the Fourth Geneva Convention protocols, which expressly forbids shooting at ambulances.")


Your reliance on Section 28 of Article 1 is utterly misplaced. The section merely says that the presence of protected persons shall not render an area "immune" from "military operations." It does not say, as you suggest, that Israel "has the right to conduct military operations against military targets" whenever they can be found amidst a population of "protected persons."


You also ignore the overriding provisions of Section 27 of Article 1, which provides that "Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof . . . " (Emphasis supplied).


Your journalist also ignored the explicit provisions of Geneva 4 granted to persons in Occupied Territories, to which an entire separate section is devoted. These provisions include express protection of residents of occupied territories and, in Art. 53, the following: "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." Thus, not even the property of civilians in occupied territories can be destroyed unless absolute necessary, as opposed to militarily expedient.


No wonder that the human rights groups, international organizations and virtually the entire world community has condemned Israel's most recent action.

First off, let me state this..had I been given the opportunity to blow that terrorist away, I would have done so. And danced on his grave. I just would not be willing to kill innocent people to achieve that goal.


They should NOT have taken out that man that night in that house. They KNEW they would kill babies ... if you can justify the murder of children then I am just peeing in the wind trying to break through that petrified thinking of yours.


Man...I give up trying to talk sense into people ignorant enough to honestly believe that any means justify the ends.

How many died when they went in with ground troops in Jenin to do just that sort of thing?


I'm not saying Isarael's actions were necessarily justified, but it all has to be weighed. Maybe more lives would have been lost on the ground, and SURELY more lives would have been lost doing nothing regarding this monster who has already planed and caused the deaths of over 200 Israeli civilians.

A good way of knowing that someone is not only wrong but knows themself that they are wrong and is that they stoop to the ad hominem attack. I think all terrorism is wrong and all terrorist should be punished, but you believe that Israel should get a pass, and not only be allowed to foment state terrorism but that American taxpayers should pay for it. Yet I'm the one accused of being a "terrorist lover." Very persuasive.


"The Geneva Convention specifically provides that the presence of Protected Persons in the care of militia does not preclude military operations against the militia."


Where is this specific provision found? Not in the article you quoted above, unless you are assuming that the convention's failure to immunize areas with protected persons from all military operations means that it sanctions military operations of any nature wherever protected persons may be found, as absurd leap of logic which would through the whole convention out the window. Further, the civilians Israel killed weren't "in the care" of the militia, as you state, but just lived nearby.


"I am curious, do you feel the same way about the U.S.'s attacks against the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan?"


Not the attacks "against the Taliban and bin Laden," but the unprovoked massacres of Afghani civilians? Of course I feel the same.


"Given the Sharon government's record of creating new provocations whenever Palestinian terrorism shows signs of abating" "That is an outright lie. Could you twist the facts a little more?"


Are you denying that Israel killed civilians while the Palestinians abided by the December cease-fire? If I'm lying, refuting it would be easy. Why can't you?


"First of all, every time there is a sign of the terror abating, and there are meetings taking place in the U.S. or elsewhere, it is the Palestinians who sabotage the talks with a new terorist attack."


Any evidence for this? It is common knowledge that the Sharon government has refused since before the intifada started to negotiate any agreement with the PA. It is the PA that has repeatedly been asking for negotiations and Israel that has refused to participate, not the other way around.


"you again are equating self-defense with terrorism"


No, I'm defining terrorism as wanton, random violence against bystanders in order to terrorize a larger civlian population to get them to accept the political goals of the terrorists. You think that terrorism is all violence caused by Palestinians, and the all violence caused by Israel is "self-defense." It's a bad argument by definition. Assuming that everything Israel does amounts by definition to "self-defense" is like Russia justifying its attacks on Afghan women and children as "self-defense" for their forces in Afghanistan in the 1980's, or China in Tibet, or any other regional superpower illegally occupying a weaker neighbor.


"More importantly, WHY IS IT INCUMBENT UPON ISRAEL not to defend itself, just because talks are going on?"


Conquest and colonization are never acts of self-defense. Ask the settlers if they think they're safer in the West Bank than in Haifa or Brooklyn. They're not there for "self-defense," and the IDF is not in the West Bank and Gaza for self-defense, they're there because they believe they have a national and religious right to displace Palestinians.


"The Palestinians could unilaterally declare a cease-fire at any time and end this madness."


They did that last year, even decalaring cease-fires for the purposes of self-defense against attacking IDF forces. Israel's response was to redouble it's military operations in the West Bank.

In Jenin, the Israelis went in looking to root out militants in general. I don't recall hearing that there was any intelligence that gave specific locations of specific militants. In this instance they had a specific location of one individual for whom they were looking. I have to agree with Dr. Wogga that there had to be a better way than just leveling the entire building. Maybe I've just read one too many Tom Clancy novels, but I have to believe that Israel has a quick response special forces team trained to move in and take targets out in situations just like this. This isn't the first time the Israelis have taken a key terrorist figure out with excessive force and unfortunate civilian casualties. Blowing up a car with helicopter-fired rockets with the result that a handful of nearby civilians are also killed seems excessive to me as well. Maybe I don't know all the logistics, but it seems to me there have to be more efficient ways of taking out the bad guys.


Matt

Your statements are ludicrous, but, unfortunately, not uncommon.


When you equate the actions of homicide bombers, who specifically, deliberately, and repeatedly murder innocent civilians--including babies--to the actions of a country that is trying to protect its innocent citizens from lunatical murderers, than obviously there is no reasoning with you.


Arafat and Hamas have only one goal--the destruction of Israel. If you are foolish enough to actually listen to any of Arafat's duplicitous statements, then I advise you to try become a little more wise to the world. At least Hamas is honest in their goals.


The violence could end at any time, if the Palestinians would just call off the homicide bombers. Its very simple. Every time Israel pulls back, another wave of homicide bombers attacks, forcing Israel to go back in. This has been an ongoing cycle. You are foolish to put the blame on Israel. All the Palestinians have to do is stop sending in homicide bombers, and the violence of the last two years will end. They will not do this. Why? Because they are trying to use terrorism and murder as a bargaining chip. They just don't understand that Israel will not negotiate under the gun, and never will. And people like you who blame countries that act in self-defense for instigating violence are a huge part of the problem.

Matt K. "Maybe I don't know all the logistics, but it seems to me there have to be more efficient ways of taking out the bad guys."


M: There could well be. All I'm saying is that until I'm of it, and also sure that Israel is lying when they said they had intellingence that the building was otherwise empty, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of condemning Israel's actions 100% and no matter what. In other words, it probably was quite wrong, but it hasn't yet been proven to my satisfaction to be 100% wrong. Thus my taking exception to the view that there is no way it could possibly have been justified. Probably it wasn't but I can't be sure at this point.

....if this attack was justified, Sharon would not have given blanket apology. He would have said we regret the innocent loss of life. However, this building has been under surveillance for xxx # of days and today is the 1st time we recieved reports of the building's emptiness - or some such rhetoric. Israel has been "condemned" by the world community, UNm etc many times and the Israelis have just gone about their business. Further, immediately after the incident, his first comment was that this missin was a success - of course meaning that the Hamas scumbag was killed. as facts came out about the children slaughtered by the IAF, he did a complete 180.

Oh please..how could you make that statement with a straight face?


A two ton rocket fired into a populated neighborhood destroying several homes, killing at least 15 people, wounding hundreds and reducing several of the surrounding target building to rubble. Populated neighborhood..duh.two ton rocket..double duh.


It doesnt take a rocket scientist (yes, the pun in intentional) to figure out they were aware of the certainty of collateral damage occuring and still launched that missile. For you to dispute what even the political leadership of Israel concurs happened it pure denial on your part.

1. I read that Israel claimed to have held off EIGHT times on this attack prior to the incident because they believed the building THEN had others in it.


2. Peres offered an apology for the error, but as of yesterday Sharon had said it was a "success" (due to getting the really bad guy).


3. Mistakes do happen and Sharon apologizing today (if he did so) does not by itself constitute an admission that the slaughter of the children was intentional.

heck we even said the USA was "sorry" to those jerks who downed our planre and held it hostage in China. Politicas aside, I don't think that was what we really wanted to say but expedience and prudence took the driver's seat.

You can't provide evidence for the facts you are evidently making up, you condemn everything I say a "ludicrous" but can't explain why, and you distort what I say into absurdities in order to knock down the straw man.


Get back to me when you're ready to carry on an intelligent debate.

look, I said it probably was indeed wrong but I'm just not 100% convinced yet...for instance how does it compare to the lives lost in Jenin when they went in on foot? I just don't know. How likely was that guy to get away (he slept under a different roof every night) if they didn't get him when they had the chance? How many more would he kill if he got away (he's already had killed over 200 innocent Israeli civilians). I just don't know, that's all. Probably, yes, I agree with you, but 100% sure? Not quite yet.


Besides, my initial disagreement over this was not as to whether it was justified, but only that I took exception to KJS' and Chris Alger's claims that it put the Israelis 100% on the same low level asd the Palestinians. That statement is clearly 100% wrong because not only could this just remotely have been accidental or justifiable, bur EVEN IF IT WAS 100% INTENTIONAL, it does not put the Israelis on the SAME level as the Palestinians because the Palestinians ALWAYS target innocent civilians whereas Israel targets the bad guys first and foremost. Israel does not pick out a Palestinian girl's birthday party as a TARGET and go to kill her and her family and friends. Those are two major differences that are not eliminated EVEN IF the occasional attack by Israelis does take a few civilians out who happened to be in proximity to the really bad guy (s). Chris and KJS can't seem to understand this fine (but important) point but I would think that you can. So even if what the Israelis just did was completely callous, wrong and atrocious, what the Palestinians do ON A REGULAR BASIS is even worse. So the moral high ground may just have been lowered by a lot, but the Israelis are still on higher moral ground than those who routinely target the most innocent and helpless for cold-blooded murders.

I can't cite facts? Pick up a newspaper on any random day and you are likely to hear about another Palestinian homicide bomber blowing up a disco, or a pizza parlor, or a supermarket, or a bus... Are you going to deny that any of those happened? Or that civilians were present? Or that the bomber didn;t know civilians would be present? If you deny those incidents you are either ignorant or a liar (maybe both).


I could cite plenty of facts, but I am not going to waste my time looking up the specific dates of those incidents to debate a bigot like you. Try reading the newspapers continuously for a few months, you will notice a trend that there is another homicide bombing every time progress is reported in peace talks. Bush made note of this last week. Powell has noted it before.


I don't know why I waste my time. Just keep supporting terrorism, bigots like you will eventually be recognized by the world for what you really are.

....this DOES put the Israelis on the same level as the Hamss/PA scum. If you want to be a respected world leader, you must be responsible in your actions. Intentionally shooting a missile into an apartment where civilians, especially children are living, is reprehensible. I would be the 1st to give Israel an iota of doubt in the matter, but clearly the facts don't add up. M, if there were 8 previous sightings of this clown and they didn't pull the trigger, what was so GOD-DAMNED IMPORTANT ABOUT THE 9TH TIME, THAT THEY HAD TO KILL FUCKING KIDS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Eventually they'd get the bastard the right way. Possibly they don't get him before he kills again. I realize that. But responsible governments have an obligation to NOT lower themselves to the level of the terrorist. Any way you slice this incident (and BTW I'm only referring to this incident - not Jenin), Israel is no better than the scum who blow up kids on street corners, bus stops, or discos.

If Israel consistently took such actions I would probably agree with you. But this is not what Israel has been doing all along. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been doing such things and worse for a long time now. So if Israel continues in this vein I would probably change my mind. But I just don't feel that this one incident makes them equivalent with those who have deliberately done things this bad and worse, and have done so many, many times.

"look, I said it probably was indeed wrong but I'm just not 100% convinced yet..."


One hundred percent wrong. The whole world knows it, condemns it and Israel has admitted it was WRONG.


I can't imagine living in Israel and being continually subjected to these homicide bombers. It is such a heinous crime against humanity. And I am a staunch supporter of Israel,their right to exist and their right to defende themselves...just NOT by whatever means necessary. Israel is aware of the damage they caused themselves by this ill-fated decision. This does not change my support for Israel.

Exactly the same reasons that I registered my outrage at the unending homicide bombers and other atrocious acts that are perpetrated against Israel on a sometimes daily basis, I am registering my horror at the attack in question that killed innocent people that had nothing at all to do with terrorism or terrorists. At least two of them were wide-eyed babies whose misfortune was to be born at the wrong time, to the wrong parents and asleep in their beds at the wrong place.


It was 100% wrong and no amount of fancy mouthwork by you is going to diminish one iota of that truth.

.....Israel hasn't been doing this all along.


That said - it doesn't justify this attack that killed innocent children. Israel, as my cyber-sniper-bigoted enemy Cyrus posted, has had more of the moral highground in this un-ending conflict than Palestine. I would hope that Israel never repeats this type of atrocity again and takes ALL the moral highground going forward. This, unfortunately for some, includes NOT PULLING THE TRIGGER when women, children, and elderly are just as likely to be victims as the scumbag terrorists.

I'm not denying that it might be 100% wrong. I'm just saying I'm not 100% convinced of that yet.