Gorgon

1) Strange answer. Who said that the well-being of the people of the Gaza strip Israel's concern? Why not also Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Africa, Europe and America as well? Who decides on whose responsibility to feed people from another state? It's their concern obviously because they are the ones bombing the place, and they decide what comes in and out of Gaza, or were you asking whether Israel should care about human rights at all. I don't know how to answer that. Doesn't Gaza grow any food of their own? Has Israel killed all sheep, pigs, cattle and burnt their crops of fruits and vegetables as well? The conflict has killed off most of the economy in Gaza long ago, it's more like a giant refugee camp managed by Israel than the Palestinian seat of government. Why is hypocricy in banning a terrorist organization? Shouldn't there be consequences for electing a party that has a foreign policy to destroy other states? Or are the palestinians a special case? Elections don't mean anything if another country decides what parties people are allowed to vote for, in any case Hamas was not banned from the election, they won, as I'm sure you were aware. I have already explained what consequences that election had.

1) The palestinians in Gaza (not the West Bank) elect a party that wishes for the destruction of Israel, why is Israel still obliged to have to supply them with food, electricity and water? Because otherwise they would starve. Human rights and all that, I'm sure you must have heard of it. Anyway the money doesn't come from Israel, and all non essential aid was cut to the bone after Hamas was elected. The US, EU, UN, they all responded by cutting off funding, so that Hamas couldn't pay out any wages. No one likes Hamas, but there is a certain sense of hypocrisy to the whole experience. First the international community tells the Palestinians that if they get behind the democratic process they will be rewarded, then the Palestinians go out and vote, only to lose all their funding because we didn't like who they voted for. 3) Why is it that violence against the Isreali "understandable, but not forgivable", but violence against Hamas "Unforgivable state terrorism"? Shouldn't violence be condemned, whoever using it? Should peace-negotiations start with condemnation of one part only? That's not a question, it's a misrepresentation.

I think it's likely we are in for another round of bulldozing. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01...gaza/index.html

The holocaust doesn't excuse anything any longer, but there have never been 4000 movies excusing anything because of the Holocaust either. I can't think of a single one.

Not only political suicide, but actual murder. Remember Yitzhak Rabin. Too many people are dead set on continuing this mess in perpetuity.

Shut up Cartman

What we need is a UNFOR squad in robot suits, not 'shoot me I'm in blue helmets' to patrol the world's hotspots.

This is business 101. If you have an 'inferior' product, re brand and rename. Throw so many names in the mix no one will be able to remember anything other than Nvidia.

I guess the question is whether they would have gotten what they wanted as a dispossessed people if somehow they had been able to refrain from terror.

Aren't you confusing the Palestinian people with Hamas. Hamas draws strength from repeated violations against civilians, ensuring that however many are killed in these incursions, there will be 10 more to take their place. Hamas cannot be eliminated with bullets anymore than can Al Kaida (will I ever remember how to spell that) You need to undermine their support, or offer a way for them to change their direction that is not a tacit admission to terrorism. See Shin Fein.

'Politically correct group think'. Do you really think I care whether my opinion agrees with some imaginary liberal agenda. It's got nothing to do with refusing to face reality, if anything being forced to take sides makes people less able to find solutions. You gain no special insight from living under threat, but it's a good way to become part of the problem, if you are not careful.

hehe, about the only thing safe right now. heck, isn't the OLF team planning to double the defense budget? not sure where i heard that. i'm eternally tied to government work even though i would prefer otherwise. taks Closet commie

It's also not up to Ireal to make Palestinian's lives better You do realize that most of the Palestinian controlled areas are under embargo, who would want to invest in an area like that. The Palestinians scrape by any way they can or live on handouts, from Hamas or wherever they can. There is no making their lives better without a lasting peace. The Palestinians want statehood as well as the land returned that Israel hogged with their settlement programmes before they will consider a peace. Those are reasonable demands, but why would Israel help build up a threat, easier just to live next to a giant refugee camp.

If Israel is going to kill Hamas members one at a time they won't be able to keep up with the birthrate.

Yes, they're not infinite, and their behavior has been modified in the past. Qualify that statement please. Anyway I'm sure there is something in between nothing, and recurring loss of civilian life as a result of the assassination policy, and the 'punitive' incursions, which are all part of the problem not the solution.

To you usually gauge your actions according to what they accomplish, or are you happy to do whatever, just so you can say you did something. Do you really think Hamas is in any danger of running out of militant leaders...

An apartment in a building has been verified as the location of a senior Hamas leader, IDF takes down the whole building, a Hamas official is traveling by car in the middle of a busy Gaza street, IDF shoots a hellfire missle, killing the people in the car, and whoever happens to be next to them. Honestly what does it matter to the families of the innocent victims that the people who had to make the decision didn't want collateral damage. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it, if all it accomplishes is to maintain the status quo.

I'm sure there were plenty of Irish who didn't think the IRA terrorist, even as they were bombing London, but it's pretty simple, killing civilians specifically in the name of politics, religion, whatever, to create a media event supposedly capable of creating a desired response, that's what terrorism is. In any case I can see I have succeeded in backing you into the unlikely position of defending Hamas' raison d'etre. My work here is done. *Evil laugh*

Hamas is a little bit of everything. The provide health care, they have a news station, they are a political party. Point is what they are remembered for is being a terrorist organization. Suicide bombs are outside the framework of democratic society. Following their election the US and EU cut off aid to Gaza so as not to directly fund their operations.

Both sides kill civilians on a regular basis, whether intentionally or incidentally, without very much to show for it. Yes, a democracy is supposed to weigh human life higher than Israel has come to do. Can you say the same of a terrorist organization. It comes no doubt from decades of low intensity conflict, it desensitizes people.

One could reasonably assume a democratic state to be held to a greater standard than a terrorist organization.

Wait wait waaaaait. There is no correlation between 9-11 and Iraq.

Jason Strackham drives really fast #14

There could be worse dominant superpowers to be had, no doubt, but you have to understand that that position automatically attracts criticism. As well it should.

Aram, suggesting a hippie song. Say it ain't so.