You're partially right, obiwan. Partially because the fight against Hamas is not a war- its a counter-terrorism action, and that's why the rules don't apply- one side is trying to kill civilians and the other isn't.

Marchosias, I sometimes just can't believe you....

"counter-terrorism action, and that's why the rules don't apply" - that's the same kind of BS that is used to explain holding Enemy Combatants in Guantanamo. Either you are at war with these people, or you are not.

"one side is trying to kill civilians and the other isn't"
- well, Hamas is trying, and in past 4 days they managed to kill 3 civilians and 1 soldier, and Israel isn't trying, and the managed to kill 350+ people, with same civilian-to-combatant ratio. I guess Hamas will get many more enemy soldiers killed when they start the land campaign...

And than what? Occupy a 1,5 million densely populated enemy city? Does Israel plan to build large crematorium to get rid of the bodies?

The rules of war still DO apply. Israel is trying to lessen civilian deaths. It cannot prevent them entirely, unless they wanted to mothball their military. They could kill everyone in the Gaza Strip if they wanted to. They have the technology and capability. They have not done so. There ARE rules. But when fighting a terrorist group who INTENTIONALLY kills civilians, a group that has no problems hiding and firing rockets from their own civilian areas, there will be civilian deaths.

Denzel, if you were the American President (I'm assuming you are American - if not, feel free to change the analogy) and the Mexican army was sending rockets into San Diego, what would you do?

I'm still watching CNN here, and there are reports of new explosions heard in Gaza City.

The NY Times Palestinian reporter on the scene told CNN that Hamas is so embedded into Gaza that they are on every block, every neighborhood- ANY kind of long-range attack, missles, rockets, or bombings done by Israel will thus kill civilians, simply because the Hamas personnel are literally just meters away from civilians.

Thus, the ONLY alternative would be a ground assault- and does anyone want that? Think of the casualties that would be involved on both sides.

And the rockets have been reaching farther and farther into Israel throughout this now 4-day conflict, with the latest ones reaching farther than ever before.

AND NOW! I just heard, breaking news- Palestinian students in Tehran, Iran have stormed into the British Embassy there, condemning them and their role in the establishment of "the Zionist regime."

Palestine is trying to take this international, and the English are, sadly, finally getting some blowback for the Balfour debacle.

I formally condemn that student organization, and rember- they did this IN IRAN- I smell an Iranian rat..........

DingleberryJones: I'm Croatian. If Serbs would start shelling our cities, we'd strike them back with all available firepower. However, if the conflict would last for 60 years, I'd try a different approach:

"In February 2008 an Haaretz poll indicated that 64% of Israelis favour their government holding direct talks with Hamas in Gaza about a cease-fire and to secure the release of Gilad Shalit,"

Whole story:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

Hawks aren't always the smartest politicians...

And if Serbs were shelling your cities for the last 60 years, what would your approach be. If they wanted your land for a greater Serbia, wanting to dismantle your nation and destroy any building of cultural heritage, and presumably kill any of you they could get their hands on, what would your approach be?

We won our war against them, by killing their will to fight.
Israel is only feeding Palestinian will to fight...

"Feeding their will to fight?"

How? By retaliating after being hit with bigger and longer missle strikes? By winning the war in 1948? By using their full military capacity to stop Hamas?

I still think everyone's missing part of the puzzle- Hamas somehow is getting better weaponry, Ashkeron was just hit in Israel, Israel's largest southern city, and as recent as the 2006 war, that was out of range. Hams is obviously getting better weaponry, and again- Palestinian students just stormed the Brtish embassy in Iran.

So what country can YOU think of that wants Israel gone, would have no problem supplying terror regimes, is in the region, and has no love for Israel, the UK, the US, or the West in general?

Ahmadenijad, anyone?

No, not Ahmadenijad. He might not be president much longer because, well, the Iranians hate him too.

The Ayatollah is the one pumping money and guns to Hamas.

Well, the Serb troops were also engaged on the field of battle. Hamas cannot be engaged on the field of battle.

More from CNN:

A Hamas spokesman is spinning this as a "Israeli occupation of our land and a Palestinian Holocaust" and says Hamas will not stop the rocket attacks until the "60 year occupation" ends.

This war is not ending soon, in my opinion.

This is getting darker, folks, neither side will stop, I'm really starting to think that that Israeli army MAY actually go into Gaza-

If that happens, the United Arab States will ceratinly act, perhaps declaring war on Israel- which would bring in Western Powers......


Both sides are wrong, but I think that Hamas started this, that they are making unrealistic peace terms (peace only if all of Israel leaves the land) to prolong the war:

I hope that these rocket shots don't become another
Franz Ferdinand-like flash point.....

The Arab states will not intervene if Israel invades Gaza.

It was my understanding that they condemned Israel and supported Palestine- not that I want an invasion by Israel or other poweres, but why wouldn't, in your opinion, the Arab states fight Israel?

1948, '67, '73- they've gone and attacked before when Israel had border and/pr Palestinian issues.

As I recall, Hamas was forced to end the truce a few weeks ago because Israel failed to keep up to their promises (typical Israel policy).

Israel's response to the rocket firing (which are targeted at rural communities around the Gaza Strip and they are barely ever successful in hurting/killing people) has been completely insane. Or rather, very well calculated. Israel has been doing this decade after decade, to provoke and then respond outrageously all in 'the name of defense'.

And then people wonder why palestinians turn into suicide bombers.

Several reasons. One, most Arab rulers don't like Hamas any more than Israel does. They are afraid of Islamic terrorism themselves. Two, its a different time than it was in 73. Israel has gone nuclear, and I don't think there is much doubt that if any country on this planet were liable to use nukes, it would be Israel. Third, having a 'Palestinian Crisis' or 'Massacre' in the news every few months rallies the citizens against Israel, rather than domestic issues. Fourth, they might lose.

"As I recall, Hamas was forced to end the truce a few weeks ago because Israel failed to keep up to their promises (typical Israel policy)."

Both sides trade accusations as to who violated the truce first. And during the truce, ONLY 215 rockets fell in 6 months. I suppose that might be acceptable to some.

No dingle, the truce was ended by openly Hamas because Israel did not live up to its concessions. When the weaker and more vulnerable party ends a truce you know it's because they were forced too.

And those are home-made (toy?) rockets.
Hamas/Gaza can barely feed itself let alone build adequate weapons.

Seriously? Thats your response? I have no problems if you want to support the Palestinian cause, but you really believe they are only shooting toy rockets?

Yeah dude do you see any palestinian F-16's dropping 5 tonne bombs on the rural outskirsts of Gaza?

I'm not calling them angels, I'm calling them pathetically helpless. Especially when compared to country with Ballistic Missiles of Nuclear capability and Satellite guided precision.

So the point of 'toy weapons' was just sensationalism, rather than truth?

How many rocket attacks should Israel accept without retaliation? Is there a number of deaths they should wait for?

we don't need to argue about my wording, there are clearly more important things :P

lazy, if you want to argue about something and don't want the focus to be your wording, choose better wording.

Well, I'm not solid on this issue, and I don't expect I'll ever be as solid as some people are in their conviction against or for Israel but I will throw some comments out there.

First, I think the Zionist reasoning is a bullshit justification. I understand you lived there before anyone, and that you have a holy book that says it's promised to you, but neither reason, separate or together, justifies the eviction of people to form your own state. If Native Americans drove me out of my house citing historic justification I'd be pissed off... and I'm sure you would be as well.

That said, I don't believe in dismantling Israel, because it's there and frankly I think if it suddenly dismantled things would only get worse. I do agree with obiwan that stronger foreign countries should get involved to break up the fight... it's just that none of the other countries have any real stake and are probably hoping some other country will take care of it. It's far too easy to stand on the sidelines and condemn both or one of the sides and point fingers at various countries. It's like when you see a fight break out at a busy bus top... everyone just sort of stands around saying how horrible this is, but nobody breaks it up because nobody has any personal stake and will just hope that someone else comes in before it gets out of hand... But just like the bus stop fight, I think as soon as one person/country takes the initiative to stop the fight, every other country will follow right behind and jump on the peacekeeping bandwagon so they can cheerfully say they had a hand in stopping the conflict.

Also, people throw the word terrorist around too much. The difference between Israel and Hamas isn't that Israel is obeying some sort of moral code and Hamas is clearly a terrorist cell, it's that Hamas is poor as fuck, and Israel has nukes and foreign backing. It's all nice to say that war is between soldiers but Hamas can't field soldiers... they're not going to give up their fight simply because they can't play by the same pompous rules that more powerful countries can... They're going to strap bombs on to people and run into malls if they can't get into better targets. It's desperation. Sure, I commend Israel for having "some restraint", and it's true they could have completely obliterated the entire Palestinian people if they wanted, but most likely not out of mercy but out of concern for further deterioration of Israeli international reputation. What's the point of founding a country out of the ashes of a Holocaust if you perpetuate another one and every country around you refuses to trade with you or defend you and Iran is grinning from ear to ear and tucking a napkin into it's collar.

So how do you solve a problem like a bus stop fight? Well someone has to take action, because everyone else will follow eagerly to be seen as one of the heroes who broke up the fight. After all, without personal stake, that's all they can take away from this... You can't kick people out of the country, and I don't think the conflict will ever resolve by one side defeating the other... because Palestine sure as hell isn't going to force Israel to surrender, and even if Isreal injustly drives all the Palestinians they still have to deal with the league of adjacent Arab nations who have no sympathy for the Zionist movement...

I think its hard to look at 'Zionism' through modern eyes. Frankly I was surprised when Obiwan said he is a Zionist. To me, the people living in Israel aren't Zionists, they are Israelis. Zionism was a concept born 100 years when there was a 'Jewish problem', when there were Jews in every Eastern European country who were discriminated against, with pogroms breaking out from time to time. The only solution that made sense to some, was developing a homeland. There were several alternatives, with Palestine finally chosen.

But many of the factors that led to the rise of Zionism are no longer relevant 100 years later. There isn't a mass exodus of Jews from their HOME countries to Israel. Thats mostly been done, or the Jews have assimilated into their HOME countries.

The thing is, both sides have, as we've established, decent claims (Zionists like myself back the "we were there first+Old Testament promise" idea, the Palestinians say they were there for many years, and had it promised to them in the Declaration (though it gave land to Israel, too.)

What, perhaps, SHULD have happened back in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration would've been giving the Jewish settlers the land that they had overwhelmingly settled and were the vast majority (which would've been most of the east and south of what was then Palestine) as the land for th Jewish State, keep Palestine in the areas where it was left (the north and west) and make Jerusalem a joint and/or nuetral city.

But what's done is done, Israelis have won the land back in war, and, honestly, that's how they and anyone else has really gained and lost the land since the inital settling- by winning and losing it in war.

To DingleberryJones:

Zionism is the belief in a Jewish State and Jewish sovereignty in the land that they believe is theirs (which is, give or take some parts of it, what is now Israel.)

So yes, Israelis, and really any Jew who beleives and supports a Jewish State for the glory of the religion (which sounds a bit tired in this age, but as Christians and Muslims have used it before, I suppose why not Jews too) and for protection (which IS needed, as 2,000 years of pogroms have proven; in any case, in my opinion, I believe all races and religions should have at least one "homes state," like Israel for the Jews, Europe and much of the West for Christians, Mecca and the Arabic-Persian States for Persians, and on.)