Let me try your version of debate.
You suggest that only a few Israeli's die from rockets, so no response is needed? That is arrogance. You suggest Israel has never tried to make peace with Arabs? That is arrogance. You suggest to the poor Jewish refugees from Europe should have stayed as penniless waifs in Europe, when the powers that be offered them free land safe from tyranny, from where they built a land of milk and honey out of a desert? That is arrogance. You suggest anyone who disagrees with you, who fails to see your side of an issue is arrogant? That is arrogance.

LOL, and maybe those weren't all your claims. But they were all mentioned in the thread. I don't feel like going back and seeing who said what.

I just want to help this thread be the longest in history, so, yeah.

I'll adress Darwyn in a moment- THAT will take a while, we do seem to be polar opposites, including the fact that I get my news from sources like CNN and Darwyn gets his from a website on the Internet called "whatreallyhappened.com".......

Chrispminis,

I d ot at all object with what you say- the reason HAMAS won't fight in an open battle is that they would be crushed, and they know it; "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" they did not gain control of Gaza through idiocy.......


And yet, that's my point- HAMAS and it's MILITANTS, the MILITARY, if you will, won't fight an open battle.

But WHO is the backbone of ANY revolution?

You need the men with a vision, and the core military, but all of the successful, and even the unsuccessful, rebellions and revolutions I listed, all the ones in history worth note that are grandiose in scale come from the same root.

Revolution, in the end, is the cry of the PEOPLE.

So here I think (and I know I'll be rebuffed and told I am wrong, but I look foward to defending this postion) that the case hase been made for me-

EITHER

This is a war between Israel and a SPECIFIC faction, Hamas, a small and, as has been established, independent organization that while it is the govenment in Palestine is recognized as SEPERATE from the Palestinians as a people; and as such if this is a war between an indepenent group and Israel and thus NOT including the Palestinians as a whole people in their entirety, then Hamas is NOT a freedom-fighting organization for Palestine, at least not first, but rather a faction trying to gain power and NOT a representitive of Palestine, and thus as this is a fight between what would logically follow as a terror group (for, if we are to to throw out Hamas' assertion of being freedom fighters in the logic above that states that if Hamas is not representative of the entirety of Palestine then they cannot thus fight a rebellion or revolution as that is defined as a fight fought by the PEOPLE as a WHOLE) and a state that, whatever your feelings, is recognized by the majority as a legal and official state, then logically the support must go to the state, for it is illogical for a proponent of the free world and freedom in general to endorse terror.

OR

If you DO choose to somehow take Hamas as the representatives of Palestine, then this WOULD be a rebellion/revolution, and as rebellions and revolutions must have the mandate and support of the mainstream people, the average Palestinian, then Palestinians SHOULD be considered fair game, and thus the talk of "innocent" Palestinians being killed must logically be thrown out as if they are endorsing a revolutionary war then they ARE part of the war and thus a fair target.

I myself believe the Former option that states that the Palestinians are not represented as a people by Hamas (that is, that the average Palestinian, what we would term an innocent man, does not endorse the sort of terror supported and used by Hamas and simply wants land and peace but NOT in the manner Hamas "promisied" to deliver it) and thus are innocently caught in the middle of a war.

And if this is the case, then they are, again, in the middle because Hamas hides near civilians tom use them as shields and martyrs and a rallying call for more recruits for their army.

Thus, Hamas attacks Israel, Israel attacks Hamas, but because Hamas is so close, deliberately, to Palestinian civilians, then logically Hamas will hit Israel and Israel will hit both its target and Palestinians due to the close nature; even something as small-scale and "accurate" as bulletfire, if done in close proximity, WILL kill civilians.

Israel is A, Hamas is B, Palestinians are C:

B launches missiles that ONLY land in civilian areas and are used ONLY to kill civilians; A uses its arsenal to attack B, but because be hides so close to C intentionally, A inevitably kills some parts of C due to the unlucky fact B is USING C.


Very complicated, hope that all came out in one piece; I expect you'll find some flaws, so if you do, pint them out, as I'm sure you will- I think that this theory works, just has a couple flaws.


Darwyn.........

I'd need more time than I have now to adress and respond against your points; make a "definitive" post on your postion after reading this, and then I'll respond (easier then reading all your many fiery posts that are at least passionate, even if I disagree with them almost wholy- and do NOT make this Israel vs. Arabs again, that point you've made, and you said before leave Iran out of this. Very well- just include A, B, and C in your response.)

Well Hamas was democratically elected so it could definitely be argued that Hamas represents the majority of Palestinian interests. That said, I'm not sure you believe that this would mean that the average Palestinian citizen then becomes a valid target. Clearly Israel's government is motivated to attack Hamas and I'm sure the average Israeli citizen agrees with attacking Hamas but that does not make the average Israeli citizen a viable target for Hamas, as you have argued. Even when citizens agree they must fight an enemy that does not mean they are valid targets...

Also, I'm not sure I would classify the Palestinian movement as a rebellion or a revolution... It would be a revolution/rebellion if Palestinians tried to overthrow Hamas... As it is, they feel they are just defending their land. I suppose you could call it resistance, but I'm not sure I would even use that label.

@obiwanobiwan - whilst I note that you favour your first option when presenting how civilians should be regarded, I'd like to take issue with part of your second option. You state that "If you DO choose to somehow take Hamas as the representatives of Palestine, then this WOULD be a rebellion/revolution, and as rebellions and revolutions must have the mandate and support of the mainstream people, the average Palestinian, then Palestinians SHOULD be considered fair game, and thus the talk of "innocent" Palestinians being killed must logically be thrown out as if they are endorsing a revolutionary war then they ARE part of the war and thus a fair target."

This is a wholely indefensible position. Children of a country do not have any influence over things that are done by their representatives, your arguement is like saying that the children of the US or UK are not 'innocents' and are 'fair game' because of the decisionsof their politicsl leaders. I think you should retract this line of arguement, it does you no credit.

"I get my news from sources like CNN and Darwyn gets his from a website on the Internet called "whatreallyhappened.com"......."

Well, that's not entirely true. I get my news sources through CNN and others, just as you do, VIA whatreallyhappened.com. I've cited the website precisely once.

But Darwyn, are your views of Israelis colored by the misquotes you've read on that site? Have you ever tried to verify the veracity of those statements, or just take them as fact? And if you just take them as fact, is it possible that the hard news, like the quotes, has misstatements, misquotes and half-truths meant to further an agenda? Perhaps whatreallyhappened.com will occasionally even link a mainstream news article at times; but only one favorable to the intent of the site, which is, at least in this case, wholeheartedly anti-Israel. There are plenty of things that Israel has done that I have been very much against, and if I only read camera.org, I would never find out about them. Whatreallyhappened.com will not give you links to stories that make the Palestinian cause look bad. So even if an article on there is legit, it is being presented in a vaccuum.

I understand your point. I have done some extensive fact checking from that site in the past. And in my experience, there has almost always been some level of corroboration. And because of that, I do not actively check every single link or post. I doubt anyone fact checks everything they read.

"Perhaps whatreallyhappened.com will occasionally even link a mainstream news article at times; but only one favorable to the intent of the site"

Oh sure...I have no doubt they do. I'm not trying to pretend that WRH isn't biased or anti-Israel. Your questioning of it is prudent...but it doesn't invalidate any of the points I've already made, regardless of whether there is an agenda or not.

"So even if an article on there is legit, it is being presented in a vaccuum."

Which is precisely why I do not restrict my research to that site, as I said before.

Again, my anti-Israel stance is not meant to condone any Arab wrongdoings. It is to add perspective on what is an obvious western pro-israel agenda.

Here's what I mean:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/what_is_really.html

"I watched BBC World News for a timed hour yesterday. In that time I saw:
Pro-Israeli (including US government) speakers - 17
Pro-Palestinian speakers - 2

Mentions of Hamas Rockets as reason for war - 37
Mentions of illegal Israeli settlements - 0
Mentions of Palestinians killed by Israel during "ceasefire" - 2
Mentions of Sderot - 12
Mentions Sderot used to be Palestinian - 0

If you don't believe me, try it yourself."

I would definitely urge you to try this yourself. I'd be willing to bet the result would be universally similar. Ask yourself, is your pro-Israel stance due to being bombarded with pro-Israel news? Be honest. How much of the Arab side do you actually read and/or hear about?

Part of the reason I no longer watch the news on TV and have instead relied on the internet is because of the obvious pro-Israel slant.

Someone needs to present the other side. And I have chosen to do that.

too true darwyn

this was a good report about the very same issue on Al Jazeera

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/20091585448204690.html

"Mentions of Hamas Rockets as reason for war - 37
Mentions of illegal Israeli settlements - 0
Mentions of Palestinians killed by Israel during "ceasefire" - 2
Mentions of Sderot - 12
Mentions Sderot used to be Palestinian - 0"

This is ludicrous. Right now, in the news is a discussion of the current situation in Gaza. The last I checked, there were ZERO Israeli settlements in Gaza. Why would one think that it would be mentioned in a report on the Gaza/Israel war? And I'm not sure of the relevance that Sderot appropriated/stole land from the village of Najd (population under 1000 in 1948) 60 years ago is really relevant, since 99% of the current Palestinians never set foot in Najd. And there are of course two sides as to why the Palestinians left Najd in 1948, whether out of fear of attack or out of encouragement of the Egyptian army to get out of the way.

"Mentions that Sderot was settled by Jewish refugees from Arab countries (mostly Morocco)" 0

Good link, sean.

Dingle...there goes your "Hamas was shooting from the school" defense:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/07/un-israel-admits-claims-about-attacked-school-baseless/

And while Israel had previously claimed to have had proof to back up its story, Gunness says the military is now conceding that the mortar fire they previously claimed came from the school came from elsewhere in the refugee camp. Though Israel is trying to keep its admission of guilt relatively quiet (far more quiet than its allegations that the killings were justified) it will doubtless pay a further price in the court of international public opinion for having once again deliberately targeted a building full of innocent civilians.

And you want to talk about being bias and fact-checking?

"The last I checked, there were ZERO Israeli settlements in Gaza."

LOL, way to avoid the actual meat of that. That was by far the least important stat in that experiment. Would you care to address the others?

"Right now, in the news is a discussion of the current situation in Gaza."

I assume that means you are watching it now. Please, do me a favor, PROVE ME WRONG and try that experiment if you would...

I don't think I was avoiding the meat. You were saying the press was biased, and as proof, noted that there was mo mention of settlements. I failed to see how one proves theother.

That is not to say the press isn't biased. Just that the proof you offered is rediculous, which is what I stated.

You completely avoided the meat of that point, but whatever.

"That is not to say the press isn't biased"

So are YOU saying the press is biased towards Israel then? What proof would convince you?

ANd you avoided this question as well: "is your pro-Israel stance due to being bombarded with pro-Israel news? Be honest. How much of the Arab side do you actually read and/or hear about?"

I read more than you could imagine. My spare time is spent reading history books not John Grisham novels. The antiwar website you sent was not new to me, as I do look at it frequently. I do peruse the aljazeera english site. And my roommate in college was a Palestinian Christian, and we argued constantly, though amicably, regarding the topic (though this was in the late 80s, early 90s). I've heard the history of his family from him, from his mother and from his elderly grandmother (though her English was limited). My pro-Israel stance is not because I am bombarded with pro-Israel news, because I read just as much anti-Israeli news. My pro-Israel stance is because I think they are right. I don't agree with everything they do, but overwhelmingly, I believe they do what the need to do, what is the only course available to them. (And I dislike the religious right in Israel, because I think they contribute to problems much like the religious right in America and in the Palestinian lands).

"overwhelmingly, I believe they do what the need to do, what is the only course available to them."

Wow, Dingleberry...just wow. Way to support the killing of innocent women and children! I hope you take pride in that at least.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4206913/Israel-bombed-Gaza-safe-house-full-off-evacuees-says-UN.html

The United Nations has accused Israeli forces of evacuating 110 Palestinians into a house in Gaza which they then shelled 24 hours later.

It said that "according to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately the people into a single-residence house in Zeitun, half of whom were children, warning them to stay indoors.

But 24-hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing between 30 and 60 people.

Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," OCHA said in a report on the situation in the battered Gaza Strip.

"An estimated 770 Palestinians and 14 Israelis have died in nearly two weeks of Israel's air and ground offensive against the Palestinian militant group Hamas."

I applaud the efficiency of the IDF. It's much easier to kill evil, stinky Arabs when they are all huddled together, isn't it?

Besides, those children will obviously grow up to hate and destroy the Israeli way of life. They deserved it, didn't they?

Sigh, when you want to accuse me of supporting putting refugees in a safe house for the express purpose of bombing them, its time for me to bow out.

They do what they need to do, Dingleberry. You said it. Not me.

...and way to backpeddle, btw.

Yes, and you cut my quote in half...If was preceded with "I don't agree with everything they do". Anyway, have a good day and life. I am done.

I'd like to point out your other comment from much earlier in this thread as well...

"While the loss of civilian life is a tragedy, voting for a government you know would war with your neighbors makes you somewhat complicit"

AKA, they deserved it.

Your true colors have been revealed Dingleberry. You must be proud.

I hope you are able to sleep at night knowing you support the killing of children.

You have a good day as well, sir.

Is "I don't agree with everything they do" supposed to be some sort of disclaimer for "they deserve it"?

Nice try.

death to israel!! :-P