Archonix,
Don't forget that if compensation ever becomes an actual issue, there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis who will want compensation from Iraq, Iran, and every other Middle Eastern country when they were evicted from their homes after the establishment of Israel.

(Its kind of ironic that Israel, which was essentially established by the Ashkenic Jews fleeing Europe caused hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews to be evicted from their homes all across the Middle East.)

Speaking from England I have to agree with the point half way down that demographically, Israel will not be a Jewish state in 50 years time and ultimately this will be the key determinant in the outcome of this situation. The Israelis should start treating the Palestinians in the way they would wish the Jewish settlers to be treated in 50 years time when they are a minority... Or they should start considering ceding cities like Nazareth to the Palestinian Authority!

The UK government recognised the same demographic situation occurring in Northern Ireland where the Catholic 'minority' are now on equal terms and Catholics of voting age will strongly outnumber Unionist Protestants in 20 years. A successful referendum for a united Ireland is inevitable and good luck to all concerned. The success of the Northern Ireland peace process has lain in an acceptance that a political route to achieve this change peacefully had to be put in place and it has been.

The Israeli government's release of the dream of a Greater Israel has died and the two state solution been pursued because of this acceptance everywhere outside of the Likud Party.

Does anyone think this is because the principal tenets of Christianity is forgiveness, whereas the principal tenet of Judaism is an eye for an eye?

DJ, you've just made a very good point!

That should be the policy all over the world, to end every war by paying the damages directly to the individuals involved. And make it a full-market value, so every nation thinks twice before they start demolishing and stealing people's property on the other side of the border.

To be honest, if the Israeli accept the two-state solution their population's numerical supremacy is ensured. Leaving the Israelis democratically in control of Israel and liberating a large chunk of the Palestinian people.

Archonix, that makes sense.... Would they still need the wall, then?

"Would they still need the wall, then?" That begs the question, if Israel gave up the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, would that bring peace?

I think so, wouldn't they need a wall to keep track of people who cross the border any way? Its purpose would be slightly different though, it would be a state dividing line rather than fencing in a section of the population.

I think that if Israel gave up the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip that less Palestinians would feel the need to be at war with Israel. It wouldn't in itself bring peace but would make it easier to approach, Palestinians wouldn't feel that they were being occupied.

"As for my audacity..."

DJ - no, I wasn't talking about your audacity...I was talking about Zionist Jews audacity.

"I fail to see how acknowledging the fact that they don't have the right to exist will enable peace."

I'm not saying they don't have a right to exist or that they should admit that they don't. I'm saying that admitting that their claim to the land was ridiculous is a good starting point for negotiations that could lead to peace.

I firmly believe that peace will only come from first addressing the crux of the matter. And let's face it, those claims are the crux. Granted in the 60+ years of violence, much more injustices have been done...but you cannot begin to heal, without starting from the beginning.

And it begins with Zionist Jews claims, and Britain and US's endorsement of Balfour. Before them, there was peace in the ME.

So here's a question. This comes from the Jerusalem Post. Granted, thats a biased newspaper, but suppose they are accurate.

"The IAF hit the house of top Hamas terror operative Imad Akel on Friday afternoon.

It was unclear if Akel was home at the time, but secondary blasts were heard, indicating the presence of weapons and explosives in the home"

"The air force also bombed the home of Hamas terror operative Muhammad Ma'tuk in Jabalya, northern Gaza, the army said.

The IDF said that the house was used as an arms warehouse and weapons lab, and also contained an opening to a tunnel used by Hamas. "

If those two quotes are true (and I'm not asking anyone to try to debate the truth of the quotes... but IF they are true), are those houses legitimate military targets? Even if civilians (the wives and children of the owners) are present?

What law forbids holding, or even producing weapons in you own home in Gaza? Is there such a law?
Are Palestinians entitled to have rights that any US citizen has under 2nd Amendment?

"top Hamas terror operative"

What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that the home of Israeli Minister of Defense, of Chief of Staff are valid military targets?

I'm not sure what Palestinian law is regarding keeping explosives in your house. I'm asking according to the accepted laws of war, if that quote is accurate and there were explosives, an 'arms warehouse and weapons lab', is that a legitimate military target?

No. It is a civilian home, with women and children inside.
Even if it is being abused as a weapons warehouse, even if the civilians are used as a human shield, there's no excuse to target it.

IDF should wait until the weapons are brought OUTSIDE, and then wait until someone tries to use them against Israel....

Oh, wait, I forgot... this is a war, and there's no rules in war. Things like firebombing of Dresden are perfectly acceptable. Or crashing hijacked planes into tall buildings...

Well, this is where we disagree. When military weapons are stored in a civilian home, it is no longer a civilian home. It is a weapons depot.

Who says they were military weapons? The guys who blasted it?

My question was "IF they were military weapons, is it a legitimate target?"

no its not

I think it is justifiable if they were just hitting weapons depots and buildings of a direct threat to Israel. The fact is that the bombs being dropped on Gaza are not all hitting weapons depots though. They're targetting police stations, universities, the houses of politicians and goverment offices. IMO a politicians house is not a valid target unless there are definitely soldiers and weapons in side - Was the Israeli military certain that there was weapons inside or was it an assassination attempt with calculated civilian casualties? I'd also be shocked if out of those dead even 1/4 were actually war-mongering paramilitary leaders and soldiers.

Anyways, good night. I'll read any posts directed at me tomorrow

Thats a valid point Archonix. I just wanted to see where Denzel was coming from, which is why I repeatedly asked the question.

Again, I wasn't saying I believed the article. I was postulating IF it was true, is it a valid attack? I wanted to see where people stood on that issue. If not even that is a valid attack, if Israel can't bomb a house with, say, a nuclear weapon in it, then I'm not sure of the point of having a debate with the people who believe that.

"Who says they are were military weapons?" Secandary explosions that's what. Most of which where larger than the bomb that was used. They did not get that large of explosion from house hold chemicals.

Who says they are not hitting military targets? Hamas that's who. It seems that anybody who complains about Israel, is just repeating what Hamas is saying.

Darwyn your (or Abdullah's) argument makes some sense, but has a fundamental flaw in it's logic.

Consider your examples- Italians as Romans, demanding England. The Romans WERE NOT NATIVE to England, they CONQUERED IT. The Spanish came to Mexico to SETTLE IT, and MEXICO BROKE AWAY FROM Spain. French Normans EMMIGRATED- they left WILLINGLY. Texas was taken by the SPANISH, not MEXICANS, and became part of Mexico after Mexico broke away from Spain- again, not the Mexican homeland, but CONQUEST. The Arabs CONQUERED Spain; even so, Spain still has a large Muslim contingent (especially in the south of Spain.)

NONE of those cases feature the same scenario the Jews pled to get Israel- that it ws their NATIVE LAND (and before you say they immigrated with Moses, they had no homeland of repute that is mentioned, Egypt doesn't count they were slaves, and Moses led them to what is now, roughly, Israel- it was the FIRST and ONLY Jewish Homeland, thus I believe that constitutes it being the native home of the Jews) and that it was FORCIBLY TAKEN from them- they didn't emmigrate to a New World, they didn;t have a kingdom and Israel was just a province- Israel was the ONLY homeland, only safehaven they knew (or really, until recently, have ever known.)

Throwing out ancient, long-gone tribes and civilizations (no one is going to plead the case of Carthaginians or Phonecians or Hittites losing their land, for example, that was ages ago and the tribes/civilizations either disolved or assimilated in such a way that they are no longer a seperate entity and race, unlike the Jews, which still retain their identity) the only peoples who have IN THEIR ENTIRETY lost their land and never regained any of it would be the Native American Tribes of the Americas. With them, I do sympathize- it WAS their land, Europe DID conquer it and destroy their way of life.

I am all for Native American rights, but ehre again is a key difference- the Tribes were just that, groups of people, sometimes loosely and sometimes more strongly associated, but, with the exception of some South American Tribes (ex. the Aztecs, Mayans, Inca, etc.) the Tribes NEVER settled the land in a way comparable to the Jews in ancient Israel.

Ceratinly the North American Tribes did not to a great extent- the closest (and I am no expert per se on Native Americans, I really know more about European-Judaic-Christian History, so if I am wrong, please correct me) any Native American Tribe really came to becoming a settled people were the people of the Iriqous Confederation of the 18th Century. They had standing settlements, albeit simple homes and nothing grand like the Aztec temples, for instance, and a shared and soherent code of laws as well as a working government.

THEY had two grave misfortunes: 1) the fact they picked the wrong side to back in the American Revolution (and I know WHY they did it, just saying they picked the losing side) and 2) they had, at least in the eyes of the colonists/American statesmen, only "semi-settled" the land (ex. yes, they had a fixed residence and homes, but no gov. buildings or roads or churches or things that people of that time associated with civilization.) Even had they allied with the Colonists and had a more entrenched society, would they have been able to withstand the expansion? In all likelyhood no, due to the colonists desire for more land and still superior manpower and firepower, but the absolution into the American society may have gone better- but THAT is a whole other story altogether.

So come back to the Jews in Israel circa the first century AD, when Masada fell (ironically enough, the site is now divided between Israeli and West Bank Palestinian control, and once again the site of bloodshed between two peoples who can't resolve their differences.) They had a heavily entrenched civilization, with temples and homes and roads and a kingship and a military and government and everything else needed for a civilization to be recognized as such. THEY DID NOT LEAVE WILLINGLY, THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED AND SCATTERED ROME. The emmigrated NOT BY CHOICE, but because they were FLEEING DEATH. After Rome's fall, the land should have been Judaic again, in a perfect world, but, like many of the people whom the Romans conquered, they were in no postion to regain their land; however, most of the other peoples did not regain their land because either the Romans had assimilated their culture and thus their identity over time, or the new conquerors (ie the Franks) assimilated them. Jews LIVED in Europe still, but wee not assimilated, not enough for their identiy to disappear- Jews were still Jews and recognized as such, much to the demise of many innocent Jews in many butcherings (which have been mentioned so many times it does not here warrant a repeating, you all can think of at least two or three big Jewish porgroms, I'd wager.)

So there's my response, Darwyn- if you or anyone else has a discrepency, again, speak up.

This debate is getting good mileage and is definitely worthwhile, lots of good opinions, and strong arguments (obviously I disagree with some, but still I appreciate a different postion well-debated and supported.)

There is no practical solution on the horizon, and there won't be one as long as both sides are more obsessed with the wrongs done to them than they are with building a future together. And it would need to be a future together, because as long as they stay separate they will always regard each other as a threat.

Wow, obiwan, I'm impressed at how you managed to continue rationalizing what I see as a weak claim.

First, why does everyone have the impression that Native Americans were hunter gatherers living in huts? Most Native American groups were greatly agrarian and had extensive civilization as well as infrastructure. They had many buildings that were identified as specialized for government, medical use, and religious purposes. As far as I know, the Jewish settlement of Israel never had anything as far as the Aztec temples either, and while Native Americans might not have had as much advanced materials such as metals I would say they had much more extensive infrastructure than Jewish Israel originally had. If Jews have their claim to Israel than no doubt Native Americans have their claim to North and South America.

You say their case is just two grave misfortunes, but such is the case with Jewish Israel as well. You claim that Israel now has a right to continue existing because it has already won the land in a land war. I acknowledge that... but now I point out that ancient Romans did the exact same. If in a perfect world it would have been Jewish again after than I submit that now if this was a perfect world Israel would become Palestine again.

You surely can't believe that Jewish Israel was the only people expelled from "their" land forcibly in similar circumstances. All your emotionally charged words work equally well for Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Celtic tribes, and yes, they also work for Palestinians. Palestinians lived in that area before the Jews got there and after the Jews left. They inhabited the area for nearly 2000 solid years... How can you maintain that Jewish people have more or even just as much of a right to settle that land?

Creating Israel was a mistake, but we have to deal with it's repercussions now. Israel is established and I wouldn't argue it's current right to squat there, but definitely not on any historic or religious grounds.

@ Chrispminis: I agree totally with this:)

"Creating Israel was a mistake, but we have to deal with it's repercussions now. Israel is established and I wouldn't argue it's current right to squat there, but definitely not on any historic or religious grounds."

Chrispminis and Daniel-san:

First of all- Chrispminis: no temples in ancient Israel like the Aztec Temples? How about THE temple, the Temple of Solomon, where the Ark of the Covenant was kept (no it's not just Indiana Jones, it really was kept there, and the Ark really is a huge Israeli-Judaic artifact, wherever it is- held THE Ten Commandmanets for heaven's sake.)

Secondly, I am NOT stating that the NA tribes were all hunter gatherer- gut many were (the Plains Indians, for instance, were very nomadic, followed the buffalo, that's how they were destroyed, in part- when the Americans killed off and fences in buffalo, decreasing population: killed buffalo and Indians with one act, so to speak.) I simply stated that they were not as united or entrenched as the Ancient Israelites. For example- name ONE temple that the Iriqoius or Sioux or Apache or blackfoot or Creek or any other kind of tribe built of great repute that still stands or did stand as a lasting monument (and I mean not just a modest yet holy wooden or earthen or such temple, I mean brick and sandstone and BIG, like the Aztec Palace at Tenochtitlan or, again, the Temple of Solomon; incidentally, that's ANOTHER reason Israelis and Palestinians will have such an issue with peace- however much you want to keep religion seperate in this debate, you cannot, and the Jews as well as certain Christians believed in rebuilding the Temple of Solomon after its destruction, but now cannot: the Dome of the Rock, the greatest MUSLIM monument, their greatest mosque, commemorating the site where it is believed by them that Muhammad ascended, is built on the very site. Literally, there is not enough room for both, it is very symbolic in a way- Dome or Temple, Judaism or Islam, Israel or Palestine. Unless cooperation is mediated by foregin powers, and the time for that grows ever shorter, it WILL become one or the other.)

Third, please tell me WHEN the Palestinians were there BEFORE the Jews? I have never heard of such a thing; if you are referencing the ancient Middle Eastern Tribes, they really cannot be counter for, as I have already stated, they were assimilated and scattered and so lost their identity; this would have occured 1,000 years before Islam's creation, and so no Islam, no Palestinians as we know them until after its creation; it would be like, to use a light-hearte example, to state that the robots trying to destroy the Federation on an old episode of Star Trek are Borg. The events that led to the creation of the Borg as a Collective and as we know them had not occured yetin kirk's time, but Picard's, so the robots can't be considered Borg (geek reference, I know, but what can I say: i'm a Trekker, and ddin't want to use a real-world example for fear of stirring up more controversy.) ;)

Fourth: I know extraordinarily little about the Aboriginals, but were they not hunter-gatherer/nomadic mostly in their nature, like the Plains Indians of NA? As for the Celts, they came to England from Central Europe and quite a few other places, they are NOT indigineous; those would be the Britons, I believe, and they assimilated in with the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, the four make up a great deal of what is now English blood. The Britons were a warrior people not altogether different from the Vikings (another group that came and lent some genes to the English genetics pool), but yes, they had structures and yes- they might have the same arguement-

IF they still existed as a seperate race.

THAT is the crux of the matter: you have listed at least a couple cases where I concede yes, the Native Americans (the settled ones, not the nomadic ones) and Britons at the very least would have a similar claim as the Zionist Jews did-

IF THEY STILL EXISTED AS A SEPERATE RACE.

You are arguing on behalf of dead civilizations for the most part. Can you name for me a great contingent of people that are PURE or relatively pure Britons, no Anle or Saxon or Norman or celt or Viking, ALL Briton, that still pracitce Briton paganism and warrior rituals?

If there are any Englishmen, I ask you- do you consider yourself Briton-Celt-Anglo-Saxon-Viking, any mixture of that, or ENGLISH? Do you practice Briton pagan rituals, or are you CHRISTIAN? Do you consider the Briton warrior legends your greatest works, or KING ARTHUR and THE BIBLE and SHAKESPEARE? (The last is a matter of choice, perhaps, but you get the idea.)

The Native Americans......... yes, alright, many have retained their culutre and self-identity, and I respect them greatly for that. Unfortunately, it is a case at this point of too little; by the logic I have presented, yes, the Iriquois Confederation, at least, WOULD have the right to their land back, and, under that same logic, they would have the rightful claim.

If this were 150 years ago, perhaps things might have been different, perhaps the Iriquois would have been able to unite and regain their land. But now they, and many tribes, are too scattered, too assimilated to a point that their culture is near-death or dead and lost, or just not willing to take on the entire United States military for their land back with a handful of supporters and inferior weapons (yes it sounds like the Palestinians at first glance, but they are not at this point yey, they still have a strong cultural identity, whereas many tribes I'm referring to now have meager reservations and many people who walk around today that are part Native American, but only a little, and thus do not consider themselves as such.

The Zionist Jews were the Native American Tribes and Britons- the only difference is that the Jews, for whatever reason (luck, fate, you say it's "the chosen people thing" but that's getting too religious and really is not a fair or applicable argument) survived as a people and a cultural identity for enough years so that they made it to the "more enlightenend and right" modern world that finally saw fit to return their land because 1) They felt it was about time and the right thing 2) they did NOT want another Holocaust/mass killings in the late 19th century-WWI in Russia (it's why my family left and came to America at the turn of the century) and 3) they wanted a Western presence in the area, a proxy.

I admit the third reason was a shameless self-agenda move by the Western Powers, but are not the first two reasons valid?

Try this- imagine everyone in Europe was red in color, cardinal red. Imagine every Arab nation has their people the color blue. You are a Jew- you are colored yellow. There is now law against being yellow in either area. You are free to be a yellow Jew and congregate with your fellow yellow Jews- but you are outnumbered 50-1 by red or blue folk. The cultural fabric of the areas are designed for either red or blue folk. And some people don't like yellow people- you're a target. Some other folks are looking for an easy answer to why things are going so badly in the area- and amidst a mass of red or blue folk, you yellows stick out like a sore thumb and are easy scapegoats. Finally, consider this- every other color has a nation or area where they are safe culturally and legally, where the government is theirs and the culture is theirs: and you USED to have a land like that, you yellows used to live in Yellowland. But it was taken from you, your massive Temple of Yellow, your most sacred place religiously and your most prominent place culturally and one of your most important places legally, was burned when you were kicked out of Yellowland, and now the Dome of Blue sits in its place. And since you left Yellowland, you've been accept in a few places, tolerated in a few more, and MASSACRED in other places- but it doesn't matter.

You can't go home- you don't have Yellowland.

THAT's what Israel is for that's what it means even to a pasty white Jewish American whose never seen it, but knows it's there, knows that if he ever wants to, he can visit a place where he's completely at home because the place has always been home- the very existence of Israel is an inspiration to the Jewish community as a whole, and even to some other parts of the world. It is not just dust that we called home 2,000 years ago- it's dust we struggled and persevered and fought and held on to get for 2,000 years, it's our version of African Americans being granted equal rights in the '60s or Indians (in this case, India) gaining control of their country back.

Or, another light-hearted reference, it's the Red Sox winning the World Series after 86 years of despair.

It's The Impossible Dream come true.

Now, not to sound a bit angsty but- can the Palestinians claim the land means as much to them yet, after only 50 years of seperation and plenty of other lands were blues (to use the previous example) are dominant and would welcome them?

I do not claim Israel is perfect, or that the Palestinians have no right to be there.

I submit that there HAS always been a justification for the creation of Israel, that Israel should stand, that it sould remain a Jewish state, and that the Palestinians can either live in peace in the land and recognize it as Israeli land, move, or find a way to split part of the land with Israel (which, if this wre a perfect world, would be the ideal option, but good luck with that, as we DON'T live in a perfect world- otherwise we would not be having this discussion, would we?)

Hamas and the rest of the militant factions opposing Israel are irrelevant. There is no appetite for peace in Israel, not amongst the politicians or the people. They are the most powerful player in the region and they see themselves able to take whatever they want, so why stop? I'd have to say that this situation is very much to the advantage of the US too. Israel depends on US backing, and 'defending' Israel gives the US every motivation (internal and external) to try and exert control over the region.

I'm pretty certain that even if all Palestinian militants totally stopped their activities, 'attacks' on Israel would continue from 'unidentified' sources, and Israel would continue with the 'retaliation' operations. Too many powerful and influential bodies are benefiting from the current situation to allow it to change. That's the true tragedy of the modern Middle-East.