My point was not that the actions of the Israeli's was worse, but that the actual consequences were worse, and that is how the rest of the Arab/Muslim world measures this conflict.

Well yes, but not because they think the consequences are more important than the intent, but rather because using that criteria supports their pre-existing positions. I have no doubt that, were the consequences and intent reversed, they would feel otherwise. For that matter, I might have taken the opposite position as well, given my pre-existing bias towards Israel.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post, but you certainly seemed to be implying that the actions of the Palestinians was less bad than the actions of the Israelis. If that was not your position, then I retract my previous statements.

Michael, apology accepted (tho it was not neccessary) just an honest assesment of my actual points of view was all I was asking for...

My point was not that the actions of the Israeli's was worse, but that the actual consequences were worse, and that is how the rest of the Arab/Muslim world measures this conflict.

I admit, there is a certain logic to Bit's position(which is why I have not engaged him on these pts. yet)... I just don't think it is feasable in this world. (1948 was a long time ago)(and Bit, as an agnostic/atheist I have a harder and harder time distinguishing between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, all 3 are Abrahamic religions, why can't they just agree to worship the same God in different ways?)

If we are going to get beyond the present stalemate, we have to look beyond our present stale points of veiw. I have no answers to what is going on, I only say that if we are going to get beyond it, we have to move beyond it.

BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Dream on.

It's what should have happened in 1948, and may once again be a solution both sides can agree upon if conditions change in the future. It's the only solution I can imagine lasting any significant length of time.

Oh, and since Juice won't be a member of my proposed federation, I don't think we have a problem with that guy.

Go back and re-read my post Michael, and try to apply a little comprehension in the process, all the way thru my assertions to my actual conclusion

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post, but you certainly seemed to be implying that the actions of the Palestinians was less bad than the actions of the Israelis. If that was not your position, then I retract my previous statements.

A constitutional federation between Israel and Palestine.

BWAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Dream on.

The Israelis must respond in proportion to their risk rather than in proportion to their losses.”

The assumption here is that the function “risk” is out of their hands, and controlled by Hamas inflexibility. Yet, it is no secrete that during the six month “truce” sea lanes into Gaza were blockaded, the common land boarder was walled off and tightly controlled by Israel, and the only safety valve for daily necessities (food, fuel, etc) was the breached Gaza/Egyptian boarder.

The good folks at southjerusalem.com examine the problem and have this to say:

Israel claimed that Hamas wasn’t keeping the agreement. That was true. It was also true that the Israeli government continued hoping, against all evidence, that the siege would provoke popular uprising against Hamas rule. Hamas regarded the calm as a failure in relieving siege conditions.

When the six months ended, Hamas decided that those Israelis would only understand force. To a man with a hammer, as the saying goes, everything looks like a nail - especially to an angry man. With a little careful thinking, anyone on the Hamas side could have figured out that no Israeli politician wanted to agree to reduce the siege in response to rocket fire. That would be giving in.

So brinkmanship led to both sides rushing over the brink into the abyss. Olmert, Livni, Barak and the collected generals apparently think that Hamas will agree to reduce violence as a result of the onslaught. A ten-second exercise in trying to imagine how Hamas leaders - or Gaza residents - see the situation leads to the opposite conclusion.

Hat Tip to John Sineteur for leading me to this link. It deserves a full and careful read.

My thanks to dutchmarble for making the point better than I can..

Tom P. Proportionally what would you do if the people who live across the street from you started heaving Malatov cocktails at your house. Say you had a gun. Proportionally you might think it right to toss some back. I say shoot the SOB and be done with it.

Let us try a slightly more accurate analogy Z:
Your neighbor get's into a fued with another neighbor of yours. You may or may not care, but it is between them and you really just want to live your life in piece. The 1st neighbor throws a bunch of molotov cocktails at the 2nd's house, doing little damage other than to singe the eaves. The 2nd answers with a barrage of artillery, blows up the firsts house (killing a few but not all) but also ends up causing your house to collapse killing 2 of your 5 children.

Proportionally Z... What would you do?

the "risk" to civilian populations from an Israeli air strike in Gaza, is considerably greater than it is from unaimed Hamas rockets at this point in time... something that is quite adequately measured by the above #'s.

Would you prefer that Israel instead fired indiscriminately into Palestine? Because your argument here is pretty much that it's better to aim at civilians and miss, than to aim at combatants and hit.

Go back and re-read my post Michael, and try to apply a little comprehension in the process, all the way thru my assertions to my actual conclusion:

What is happening now, only strengthens Hamas (just like Hezbollah in Lebanon last year).

You may disagree with me, and I am quite sure you can cite facts and postulate reasonable arguments to support your position, but do not try to put an argument in my post that is quite clearly not there.

... any more than we wanted to kill Iraqis. Which is why I've suggested saving who can be saved, as they appear to be doing. In neither case, however, did the solution involve not waging war. Are you getting the idea, yet?

Iraqis weren't firing rockets at the US, so the situation isn't comparable. Israel is much more justified in their military action than we were. I know that war was necessary, I was saying that Israel didn't feel that genocide was necessary, while you evidently do.

And so, your solution then is what?

A constitutional federation between Israel and Palestine.

Who defines risk? And what does a “proportional response” mean?

Why, the Palastinians, and the Iranians define risk. We can't let Israel do that, after all. (sound of tounge popping in cheek)

The thing is, Bithead, Israelis by and large don't want to kill Palestinians.

... any more than we wanted to kill Iraqis. Which is why I've suggested saving who can be saved, as they appear to be doing. In neither case, however, did the solution involve not waging war. Are you getting the idea, yet?

They would negotiate over a final border for a Palestinian state, argue over settlements, Jerusalem, and the right to return, and end up firing rockets and missiles at each other again. I firmly believe that no two state solution is viable.

And so, your solution then is what?

But it strikes me as nothing less than absolute absurdity to keep on doing what they have always done, and expect different results this time.

I am reminded of Chamberlain talking about never going to war with one another again.( I caution you; My angle on his saying that, here, is a little different than its general usage.)

That is the great wet dream, is it not? Being able to say peace for all time. Once we've won the war, we don't ever have to go back to fighting wars again?

The fact of the matter is there's always another war to fight. Because there's always somebody willing to fight against you. Which is exactly why the "peace dividend" was such a fallacy; once the Soviet union was out of the way every ten pot dictator from here to there wanted a piece of the action. It never changes. That's what eternal vigilance is all about. The United States, no less than Israel.

The reality of the situation is that all one can do is essentially a holding action. Because of varied ideologies some holding actions require more maintenance than others, And Israel, certainly has the heart a row to hoe.

Make no mistake...Even in this scenario I've proposed , I'm certainly not foolish enough to think that it's going to be peace for all time. Eventually, their religious and culturally driven fervor will have them at it again. And if that doesn't do it, Iran will doubtless find some other way of some other means of spurring them to war.

But the more soundly they're trounced, the longer the period of peace following the war will be. Sorry, I'm not happy about it either, but that's the reality.

Research from a number of sources, including the Israeli-Palestinian B'Tselem group in Gaza, indicates that the owner of the truck in the Israeli Defense Force bombing was not a Hamas member transporting rockets, but instead a civilian transporting gas welding canisters from his metalworking shop.

According to B'Tselem, eight people were killed in the bombing, including the son of the shop owner, Ahmad Sanur. My apologies for the horrible event and my flippant comment. As best as I can tell at this point, the video I linked to yesterday from the Israeli military's YouTube Channel (posted above, for as long as it remains on-line) documents the same attack on Mr. Sanur's shop. The second image of the gas canister was taken by B'Tselem field workers after the fact.

For those with a strong stomach: this graphic video documents 8 minutes in Gaza after an IDF attack.

Steve Clemons posted a piece by Mustafa Barghouti: a former secular candidate for President of Palestine and a strong advocate of non-violent responses to Israeli occupation. He addresses some of the arguments used in this thread.

the "risk" to civilian populations from an Israeli air strike in Gaza, is considerably greater than it is from unaimed Hamas rockets at this point in time... something that is quite adequately measured by the above #'s.

Would you prefer that Israel instead fired indiscriminately into Palestine? Because your argument here is pretty much that it's better to aim at civilians and miss, than to aim at combatants and hit.