Do we really need 2 threads about a question that hasn't produced a decisive answer in 61 years?

@ Sioraf
Well, that's the point, isnt't it? :)
The other thread mutated into this eternal senseless discussion - and I wanted to remove the legacy - so that maybe people will look at these last weeks from a different perspective, start thinking, and stop repeating whatever they had memorised before the question was even asked.

Really, the elected government of the country that begins the long-range attacks on another nation does not really matter.

If one country attacks another, the other country has every right to defend it's territory. Now, is an invasion an appropriate response? I think this is difficult to say.

Generally speaking, I'd argue that an invasion goes beyond defense and the defender would become the attacker.

Yes, they are. If you mean this to mirror the Palestinian-Israel conflict this point has been addressed many, many times in that thread.

The real question is if the democratically elected radical government is justified in shelling with rockets in the first place. For Israel-Palestine, I would argue that if Israel is justified in it's retaliation then Palestine is justified in attempting to defend their home and vice versa. If Israel's retaliation isn't justified then, Palestine's attacks aren't either, and vice versa.

I don't think any nation in the Free/First World would be stupid enough to attack each other without much cause. The Middle East on the other hand has been fighting even longer than the Europeans and they will never stop.

Chris has it right. There's no impartial way to support a position where one of them is justified and one is not. Then again, most humans are far from impartial.

"Imagine Ireland (EIRE) elected a radical (e.g. IRA) government and started shelling the UK with rockets."

Why would Ireland's radical government be shelling the UK in the first place? Just cuz they are "radical"? There's a story there...what is it?

Or tell me it doesn't matter and you will have identified the reason behind the "land offensive".

airborne and Ziph, I beleave this hypothetical not an real situation. There for your comments make no sense.

Well warsprite they are legitimate when you realize this hypothetical is probably meant to mirror the situation with Israel/Palestine. If the hypothetical is actually to apply to that situation then we would have to identify the reason Ireland attacked the UK because there is a reason that Palestine is attacking Israel.

The problem is you seek a reason for the attack in the first place.
If you know the reason for the rocket attacks from 2005, or the kidnapping of the soldier, you say you can better understand the conflict.

But the problem is, the reason is too clear. they wish to destroy Israel, as it's says in the manifest. not even to creat a palestinian country (unlike Fatah), only to destroy Israel.

Consider this: Did Al-Quaeda had a reason for 9/11 other than the fact they want to destroy western civilization?

That's the problem: The reason is too clear, that it simply doesen't make sense. If I hadn't lived here all my life, I admit it wouldn't make sense to me either.

Yes. If Country A attacks Country B, then Country B has a right to retaliate, even without a formal declaration of war.

"we would have to identify the reason Ireland attacked the UK"

Well, the reason the IRA used to bomb London and other British cities was to resist British rule in Northern Ireland. If they were elected into government, I expect their aims would be the same.

What about Germany in WWII? A minor attack on Berlin killed 10 civilians. Would it be justified for Germany to respond in the same way? Well, the luftwaffe bombed British cities constantly for nine months causing over 43,000 civilian casualties in a series of attacks known as the Blitz. Was it justified? Surely country B is merely retaliating to an attack from country A?

Well the Luftwaffe's change of priorities to target London was done on the direct orders of Hitler, who by that point can be considered to have lost his mind.
Also Germany was at war with England to begin with so it doesnt really equate to the question.
Finally, the attack on Berlin was because the bombers got lost (not a good day for bomber command) and decided to just drop their bombs on the closest building and go home.

I think if you were trying to equate it to a WWII example then the allied firebombing of Dresden, which destroyed the entire city as revenge for th Blitz.

In this case Eire firing rockets at england you forgot to mention that england had a sea and air blockade of Ireland for the last 2 years, regularly sent in assassination squads to kill Irish leaders(and whoever ,including children might have been near that leader at the time the missile struck), controlled Ireland's air space, electricity, ports and water flow to the detriment of the Irish economy, and refused or delayed visas to sick irish citizens needing medical treatment (dialysis etc) in england. Ireland in this scenario is basically a self run one huge prison camp.

sean, you need to remember it only happend after the Irish had a military coup by a group which calls for the destruction of biritain and attacked it's citizens BEFORE the blockade.

Ndr-Isr... They are attacking Israel and would like it abolished because they feel they have been evicted from their own land and are defending their homes. I'm sure you would do the same if someone tried to evict you from your home. Is it not your right?

9/11 clearly wasn't meant to destroy Western civilization, or because they "hate our freedom". The only reason Middle Eastern countries have a huge anti-American stint is because of American's intervening foreign policy in the past decades that's seen the Gulf War and the installation of Israel in already occupied Arab land... They aren't trying to destroy Western civilization because that's an absolutely ridiculous goal. They have nowhere near the resources to pull that off. No, they are trying to fight back against an international bully who swoops in mucks up their countries, takes their oil and resources, buys their economy at bargain prices and then goes back to bask in the ridiculous international iniquity they've created. Let me tell you, if you were living in the Middle East, you would probably also hate Americans and I'm sure you would then say you had incredibly good reasons to feel that way and that it makes absolutely good sense.

Ndr-Isr, but that's because once Ireland and the UK were both Irish but after being victims to a Holocaust the Irish had nothing to do with the English were thrust upon their land by powerful foreign countries who had little interest in housing the English and instead the Irish were forced out of their homes and experienced an unprecedented influx of foreign culture.

Hell, many Americans complain of the ridiculous amount of unwanted Mexican immigration and they feel that it's highly detrimental to them. But this Mexican immigration is not near the proportion that the Palestinians experienced... How can you say you would not get violent in a similar situation?