Fighting in Gaza Strip

[blankall]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

But part of the problem is the result of Israel's mandate as a Jewish state - one that makes second class non-citizens of individuals who happened to be living there when the state was created, and who don't happen to share certain religious beliefs. If people of all religions could move to Israel and share equally in its promise, that would give some hope to the situation. But the fact is, Israel's entire raison d'etre is to be a homeland for Jewish people, and this by necessity means the exclusion of others. Israel's survival relies upon excluding people on the basis of their ethnicity and religion. This is inherently problematic, particularly given the ethnic and religious makeup of the people who were there when Israel was formed.
\

I know this is not your intention. But this post is extremely anti-semitic.

It reflects a total ignorance of what a Jewish person is. You do realize that Israel is made up of many many denominations of Judaism and many many ethnic groups of jews?

How is having a Jewish country any different than having an English, a French, or a Polish country? Are unlimited immigrants allowed into England?

That beside the point that most Jews in Israel are about as religious as most Christians are in Canada.

The crux of this argument seems to be that Israelis deserve violence because they are Jews and the only way the would ever deserve peace is to lose their Jewish identity. If your so concerned abut nations based on religion and ethnicity being racist why not start with every other nation in the old world?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

But part of the problem is the result of Israel's mandate as a Jewish state - one that makes second class non-citizens of individuals who happened to be living there when the state was created, and who don't happen to share certain religious beliefs. If people of all religions could move to Israel and share equally in its promise, that would give some hope to the situation. But the fact is, Israel's entire raison d'etre is to be a homeland for Jewish people, and this by necessity means the exclusion of others. Israel's survival relies upon excluding people on the basis of their ethnicity and religion. This is inherently problematic, particularly given the ethnic and religious makeup of the people who were there when Israel was formed.

None of what you wrote above is true, where did you read any of this? Is it something you believe? There is only one law regarding religion in Israeli immigration, and that is Jews have a right to move to Israel. Other people, just like Canada, can apply to move there. Citizenship is citizenship. If you are an arab citizen, you can run for politics, be in the police, be a doctor, anything. Israel's survival depends not on excluding people, but on educating their people.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Looks to me like you are using this whole thing to take needless potshots at certain aspects of Islam.

That is total bull, and you know it. I have taken no potshots, and am not sure what your motivation is to make that accusation. I have equal problems with all religions and think sometimes the world might be better off without. However, there is a current problem with extremism that I think groups like Hamas exploit. How any of that is a potshot at Islam is beyond me. You almost act like you have been in a cave for the last few decades.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by blankall

I know this is not your intention. But this post is extremely anti-semitic.

It reflects a total ignorance...

Flylock Shox's comment, though extremely ignorant, is not anti-Semitic. His comment is akin to the standard "apartheid" myth or the "Chosen People" myth. He thinks he is criticizing the government for the law of return and it's concern over the demographic questions.

What he does not realize is the diversity that is in Israel. There is freedom of religion in Israel - ask the Christians, Muslims, Ba'hais, bhuddists, taoists, humanists, etc. There are no second class citizens in Israel - there are those who are well off and those who are not, just like in Canada & the US.
There are Arab members of Parliment (one in Cabinet - imagine Harper letting an NDP member into Cabinet!). Some Druze serve in the IDF. There is a thriving (non-Jewish) Asian community (Israel was one of the only countries to accept Vietnamese boat people). Ethiopian culture is making itself seen and heard (though many Ethiopian immigrants are low-income). There is a small Latino community (mainly Jewish immigrants from Argentina and Mexico).

All these communities, as citizens, can vote, run for public office, have access to the courts, can own property, can congrigate together, pray together (or alone, I guess), frolick on the beach together...etc.

Perhaps Shox could remind me:

Which Muslim countries held a Gay Pride parade last year? Israel held one.
Can Jews hold public office in Iran? nope.
Can Jews enter Saudi Arabia? Only if they are US Military and confined to their base.
Jews cannot own property in Syria or Lebanon.

Please remember - Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza are NOT Israeli citizens, they mostly hold Jordainian or Egyptian passports, so yes, their movement is restricted.

And yes, sometimes Israel prohibits Muslims of a certain age from praying at the Al-Asqua Mosque and the Dome of the Rock - mainly because they have shown in the past that they have a tendancy to throw rocks and garbage at other worshipers. Saftey first.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

A few things that have me scratching my head:

1 - All main denominations of Judaism- Ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conservative, reform, and deconstructionist - involve an afterlife. The "World to Come" or the "Kingdom of Heaven" do factor in all those theologies. "Mitzvahs", or good deeds, lead to a good portion, at G-d's side, in the World to Come.
An exception is Humanistic Judaism, which does not believe in the after life.

There is certainly much written about the afterlife in regards to the Jewish religion, however it is only part of the religion for the vast minority. I have been clear about this - the orthodox to some extent have some type of afterlife, but mainly the form of some sort of resurrection. There is basically no afterlife, no one coming back, and no heaven for pretty much anyone. The basis of Judaism is what you do on earth. Period. The Jews being Jews though, have retained the books and teachings from many generations and debate and argue every last bit of it. It seems the afterlife is one of those things that kinda is gone (but as you point out is still viable for many Jews). Interestingly, there are aspects to the religion that contradict this, including staying with the dead immediately after death (to guard the soul) and other things, yet those are all more or less cultural artifacts that the Jews continue. There is no synagogue preaching that dying in battle will bring you to heaven, or something like that. The point I am arguing is there is a major philosophical difference between the average Israeli soldier versus a Hamas terrorist and the reasons for the wars they are fighting.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

That is total bull, and you know it. I have taken no potshots, and am not sure what your motivation is to make that accusation. I have equal problems with all religions and think sometimes the world might be better off without. However, there is a current problem with extremism that I think groups like Hamas exploit. How any of that is a potshot at Islam is beyond me. You almost act like you have been in a cave for the last few decades.

Larf.

And I suppose this is a compliment?

One side kills their own people, wraps bombs around their own children, believe in some warped afterlife, are filled with hate,

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Flylock Shox's comment, though extremely ignorant, is not anti-Semitic. His comment is akin to the standard "apartheid" myth or the "Chosen People" myth. He thinks he is criticizing the government for the law of return and it's concern over the demographic questions.

Basically all he has done is this:

1) told Israelis and Jews what they are and what they think;
2) labeled that as evil and racist; and
3) said the only way they will ever get peace is if Israel stops being Jewish.

Holding Jews to a different standard than everyone else and then attacking them based on that standard is more or less the definition of racism. If he is so concerned about a state based on a common culture and religion, why not pick any one of the other states in the world to attack.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

There are many political parties in Israel, as you indicated. I imagine this incursion into Gaza is as much a political gambit by the present government to appeal to the Israeli population - a population which is likely tired of being shelled and a portion of which has no sympathy for the situation of the Palestinians - as it is an attempt to injure Hamas. They can't possibly believe that it's going to bring actual and long lasting security, because it clearly won't, particularly when a rather ham-fisted approach with large numbers of casualties is employed, and simply perpetuates yet another generation of angry hopeless youth.

I'm curious about what Israel is supposed to do? Hamas has never negotiated in good faith and never will, its against their charter to do anything but secure temporary peace in order to rearm and retrain. Israel has tried to negotiate, has tried to do what was asked of it and it continually gets attacked by hostile extremists that insist on protecting themselves by hiding among civilian populations. For the most part Israel has reached an understanding with the more moderate West Bank.

Israel at this point was backed into a corner both by political situations at home, and by an enemy that insists on attacking its civilian population base indiscriminantly.

Combine that with a UN that has been ineffective in the region and you have the situation that you have now. A populous that demands that Hamas gets removed as a political and military enemy and an end to daily rocket strikes.

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Please show me anywhere in the charter above that Hamas would settle for peace in the region.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

But the fact there are numerous parties only indicates there are various interests at play in Israel, as one might expect. It changes nothing about the power structure of Israeli politics, or the general nature of the population. And while the peace process would clearly be aided by the elimination of combative and extremist groups like Hamas, blowing them up isn't going to accomplish that. It's just going to lead to more eye-for-an-eye thinking and a continuation of violence.

Sorry, but anything but trying to destroy Hamas isn't going to work, the time of trying to dissaude Hamas with a punch to the nose is over. There isn't going to be a peace process as long as Hamas retains the ability to launch attacks on Israel.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Israel is in a difficult situation, no doubt about it. It has been since its creation, and it will be for the foreseeable future. But part of the problem is the result of Israel's mandate as a Jewish state - one that makes second class non-citizens of individuals who happened to be living there when the state was created, and who don't happen to share certain religious beliefs. If people of all religions could move to Israel and share equally in its promise, that would give some hope to the situation. But the fact is, Israel's entire raison d'etre is to be a homeland for Jewish people, and this by necessity means the exclusion of others. Israel's survival relies upon excluding people on the basis of their ethnicity and religion. This is inherently problematic, particularly given the ethnic and religious makeup of the people who were there when Israel was formed.

I don't know where you get your information from, but citizens other then Jews can have any job that they want, can run in politics, vote, they're allowed to worship their religion. Your making Israel sound like a racist or anti other then Jew state, and thats simply not true.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

As for the state becoming more extreme, it's absolutely inevitable given their situation in the world: a state whose reason for being is no longer as valuable as it once was, which contains all sorts of important religious holy sites, and which is subject to constant stress and attack from outside and within its borders. The result is an attitude more conducive to fighting for survival than mending fences and doling out olive branches. But fighting will only beget more fighting, that much has been pretty well demonstrated.

How do you figure that Israel is going to become an extreme state or become more extreme? If anything their unstable form of parliment leads to continual coalition governments which means that there is a shakey balance between moderate and extreme sides.

Of course Israel has a survival mentality. Since their founding they've been on a continual war footing first with Arab Nation states trying to launch wars of extermination, then continual terrorist attacks by groups dedicated to the extermination of Israel and the Jewish people.

Israel seems to have an unfair perception that they're the only group in the region that's supposed to negotiate in any kind of faith, and they're expected to hold up to their side of any cease fire while their opponents seem to get more of a free hand in launching attacks.

Hamas is not going to bend, they don't give to s if their civilians are hurt during this war, they're probably ecstatic when they see casualty reports as they ride from hiding place to hiding place in ambulances and UN painted vehicles as this is a public relation boon for them. Hamas is never going to negotiate in good faith, they're never going to live up to a long term cease fire, and until they're gone or their power base and ability to bring in weapons through Egypt and Lebanon is gone they're not going to stop.

This one is going to the bitter end.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

There is certainly much written about the afterlife in regards to the Jewish religion, however it is only part of the religion for the vast minority. I have been clear about this - the orthodox to some extent have some type of afterlife, but mainly the form of some sort of resurrection.There is basically no afterlife, no one coming back, and no heaven for pretty much anyone. The basis of Judaism is what you do on earth. Period.

The Basis of Judaism is "Follow G-ds laws and you will be rewarded". Do the Mitzvahs (good deeds) and be rewarded in Olam Habah.

Orthodox - http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...fe-beliefs.htm

Conservative - "In truth, however, Conservative Judaism is committed to Jewish tradition and to the observance of mitzvot." http://www.uscj.org/The_Ideal_Conservati5033.html

These groups represent far more than a "Vast Minority".

The Jews being Jews though, have retained the books and teachings from many generations and debate and argue every last bit of it.

Yes, I am familiar with the Talmud and Gemora, as well as Pikea Avot, the Shulchan Aruch, etc. Two Jews, Four opinions.

It seems the afterlife is one of those things that kinda is gone (but as you point out is still viable for many Jews).

Not gone, just not at the forefront. ("many Jews" or a "vast Minority"?)

Interestingly, there are aspects to the religion that contradict this, including staying with the dead immediately after death (to guard the soul) and other things, yet those are all more or less cultural artifacts that the Jews continue.

Not a cultural practice, a religious one - Jews do it (as they do a lot of religious traditions) without any understanding. A lot of Jews fast on Yom Kippur because their parents told them to, not because they understand the concept of repentance.

There is no synagogue preaching that dying in battle will bring you to heaven, or something like that.

Well...not exactly. NO, Rabbis don't tell their followers that if they kill in battle, or kill themselves and take as many enimies with them as they can, they will be rewarded with virgins.

But, martyrdom is a Jewish concept. It just holds little stature in today's Western Secular world. http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-...dom/index.html
"Perhaps the most important feature of martyrology in Jewish traditions we might observe is the marginal role it plays in contemporary Western Jewish practice and belief."

Mostly, historical Jewish figures chose to die rather than convert or commit blasphamy.

Again, the Afterlife and martyrdom are waaaay down on the list of Jewish belief, but they are on the list.

The point I am arguing is there is a major philosophical difference between the average Israeli soldier versus a Hamas terrorist and the reasons for the wars they are fighting.

And I agree with you on that.

But saying the afterlife is not a Jewish belief because most secular Jews, who make up the majority, don't believe it is like saying eating kosher is not a fundamental Jewish practice because most Jews don't do it. It is just incorrect.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by blankall

Basically all he has done is this:

1) told Israelis and Jews what they are and what they think;
2) labeled that as evil and racist; and
3) said the only way they will ever get peace is if Israel stops being Jewish.

Holding Jews to a different standard than everyone else and then attacking them based on that standard is more or less the definition of racism. If he is so concerned about a state based on a common culture and religion, why not pick any one of the other states in the world to attack.

Yeah...read a couple of times and I can see where you are coming from, but I still think his comment is just good old fashioned anti-Israel claptrap. I personally think the old "apartheid" (exclusion based on ethnicity in Shox comments) argument is anti-Israel and not anti-Semitic.

And yes, why doesn't he pick on Gaza - no Jews are allowed to live there at all and it was Judienrien (free of Jews) for three years, right up until last week.

Note, I am not defending Shox, I found his comment offensive and ignorant.

[jammies]

Israel is not a secular state. It does not have a constitution as such, but try reading the Declaration of Independence at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/..._of_Indep.html.

To be sure, the rights of non-Jewish citizens are protected and they are not restricted in any way. However, the claim that Israel is a secular state is simply not true; it is a Jewish state no less than Iran, for example, is a Muslim state.

Granting minorities rights has nothing to do with whether or not a state is religiously based, what is important is where the laws and governmental institutions are derived - in Israel, they are derived from the Jewish faith, as is explicitly set out in the Declaration, "it (the State of Israel) will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel".

I don't know how more clearly it can be put than that statement. Arguing over whether or not this religious basis of statehood is good or bad is one thing; flat-out incomprehension of this basic historical fact (oh no - not history again! Can't we pretend the world was created yesterday?) highlights the outright blindness of its proponents.

Oh and for the record, while I don't think invading Gaza will solve anything in the long-term, it's a much more defensible use of force than "precision" bombing. Someone should have strangled Douhet in his crib.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think that Douhet's crib death would have prevented bombing strategy from evolving to this point.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I want to jump into that youtube clip and punch that girl in the face

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by jammies

Israel is not a secular state. It does not have a constitution as such, but try reading the Declaration of Independence at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/..._of_Indep.html.

To be sure, the rights of non-Jewish citizens are protected and they are not restricted in any way. However, the claim that Israel is a secular state is simply not true; it is a Jewish state no less than Iran, for example, is a Muslim state.

Granting minorities rights has nothing to do with whether or not a state is religiously based, what is important is where the laws and governmental institutions are derived - in Israel, they are derived from the Jewish faith, as is explicitly set out in the Declaration, "it (the State of Israel) will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel".

I don't know how more clearly it can be put than that statement. Arguing over whether or not this religious basis of statehood is good or bad is one thing; flat-out incomprehension of this basic historical fact (oh no - not history again! Can't we pretend the world was created yesterday?) highlights the outright blindness of its proponents.

Oh and for the record, while I don't think invading Gaza will solve anything in the long-term, it's a much more defensible use of force than "precision" bombing. Someone should have strangled Douhet in his crib.

Don't want to argue, just asking - Does that mean that Canada is a Christian religious state? Or is it a secular state because it has a constitution?

In the context of this discussion, does Iran adhere to Sharia Law or a type of secular civil law? In Israel, though a beit din (Jewish religious court) has a lot of power, I do not think it holds sway in criminal courts, whereas Sharia Law does. I think British Common Law is a large influence on Israeli Law.

(I think the Prophets would have envisioned more of a benevolent monarchy with a powerful priesthood rather than the current parliamentary system.)

In G-d we Trust (US penny)

(Sorry, have to pick this up tomorrow - 1:30 am here and I have to work tomorrow. Good night all.)

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think that Douhet's crib death would have prevented bombing strategy from evolving to this point.

Probably not, some other idiot would have fallen in love with the idea of indiscriminately smashing the enemy from the safety of the skies. That's the lesson of history - there's always another idiot.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Don't want to argue, just asking - Does that mean that Canada is a Christian religious state? Or is it a secular state because it has a constitution?

It isn't a secular state because it has a constitution, it is a secular state because the law of the land is based on a secular document. There is no portion of the Canadian Constitution that enjoins that the law of the land be based on the Bible or Jesus' teachings. Similarly, the oft-heard claim that the USA is based upon Christianity is not borne out by their Constitution, either.

I agree that Israeli law and government displays significant British influence. I also think that this influence could eventually evolve the state into one that is truly secular - but that is nowhere near happening yet.

[HOZ]

Just need to get this off my chest.

It is beyond obvious that Hamas is totally at fault for this conflict. To say they WERE fighting an occupation because Israel controls the borders is beyond stupid. That would mean Canada is occupying the USA. It also ignores the obvious fact that one border is with Egypt. They do NOT represent the Palestinian people and neither care or fret about their welfare. They are a Iranian supplied and trained terrorist group that slaughtered a reportedly anywhere from 2000-20000 Palestinian rivals to grab control of Gaza.

Those that defend Hamas are seriously so far gone that no quips or quotes will bring these people back to reality. They are truly a joke.

The UN is a joke and really an adversary. Schools, ambulances and what not are there for Hamas military use. Even the Red Cross has become a terrorist excuser and helper.

That said......

I believe, and I really don't have an right answer for Israel here, that Israel is going about this the wrong way. Yes they needed to stop the rocket and mortar attacks. But this attack is going to turn out badly in the end. What are the goals? Actually, what are the attainable goals?
1) Reoccupy Gaza?
Hamas had no reason to attack Israel. Now the IDF is back occupying Gaza ans gives Hamas everything it needs(whatever that french term is for that) to rearm, recruit, and an obvious visible enemy (in their territory) to fight.
2) Remove Hama and put in the Paletinian Authority?
Ya that sure worked the first time. And did Hamas leave any alive? To do this the IDF would have to be Machivelian enough to make great parts of Gaza a parking lot. Ghengis Khan the SOBs.
3) Pull out and wait for the do-over?

This fight is wrong, not as in wrong morally, just not the answer to the problem. I don't have an alternative or fantastic answer but this was the wrong way to go about it.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by jammies

It isn't a secular state because it has a constitution, it is a secular state because the law of the land is based on a secular document. There is no portion of the Canadian Constitution that enjoins that the law of the land be based on the Bible or Jesus' teachings. Similarly, the oft-heard claim that the USA is based upon Christianity is not borne out by their Constitution, either.

Read the preamble

[flylock shox]

Whoo!! Now we've got some good discussion going here.

Originally Posted by blankall

I know this is not your intention. But this post is extremely anti-semitic.

It reflects a total ignorance of what a Jewish person is. You do realize that Israel is made up of many many denominations of Judaism and many many ethnic groups of jews?

How is having a Jewish country any different than having an English, a French, or a Polish country? Are unlimited immigrants allowed into England?

That beside the point that most Jews in Israel are about as religious as most Christians are in Canada.

The crux of this argument seems to be that Israelis deserve violence because they are Jews and the only way the would ever deserve peace is to lose their Jewish identity. If your so concerned abut nations based on religion and ethnicity being racist why not start with every other nation in the old world?

To respond to your post first blankall, I do understand their are groups within groups. However, in the context of this region one Jewish person is very much like another and their interests (in as much as their interactions with their Muslim neighbours are concerned) are effectively the same. I don't mean to say all Israelis think alike, that's clearly not the case. But they do all find themselves in a similar position when dealing with conflicts beyond, and sometimes within, their borders. My post overgeneralized, clearly, but if you want to get into the nuances of it, we'll be here all week.

As for how Israel differs from other countries based on a common ethnicity, it doesn't in many ways. But England has been moving away from this model, as has the rest of Europe generally, becoming more inclusive and secular as they go. I don't think Israel can diversify in the same way (and I do recognize it is clearly more inclusive than many of its neighbours) - if they do, they risk losing their identity as a Jewish homeland - the exact purpose for which Israel exists in the first place.

As for being deserving of violence, I have argued no such thing. Nor have I said they should lose their Jewish identity. I have only argued that their inherently exclusive identity places them in a difficult position, and separates them from being a secular state in the supposed Western model. If anyone deserves some peace after the last century (give or take about a thousand years) it would be the Jews, wouldn't you think?

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

None of what you wrote above is true, where did you read any of this? Is it something you believe? There is only one law regarding religion in Israeli immigration, and that is Jews have a right to move to Israel. Other people, just like Canada, can apply to move there. Citizenship is citizenship. If you are an arab citizen, you can run for politics, be in the police, be a doctor, anything. Israel's survival depends not on excluding people, but on educating their people.

But therein lies exactly the problem: you get in based on your ethnic background (and, if I'm not mistaken, even if you have married into it now). Can you not see how this might be offensive to a Palestinian, who may have been born there, lived there, commutes through security borders every day to work there, to see someone with no ties to the region adopted as though this was his or her home? In my view, Israel's survival depends on making peace with its neighbours. It can't continue to engage in conflicts with no end in sight.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sorry, but anything but trying to destroy Hamas isn't going to work, the time of trying to dissaude Hamas with a punch to the nose is over. There isn't going to be a peace process as long as Hamas retains the ability to launch attacks on Israel.

...

How do you figure that Israel is going to become an extreme state or become more extreme? If anything their unstable form of parliment leads to continual coalition governments which means that there is a shakey balance between moderate and extreme sides.

Of course Israel has a survival mentality. Since their founding they've been on a continual war footing first with Arab Nation states trying to launch wars of extermination, then continual terrorist attacks by groups dedicated to the extermination of Israel and the Jewish people.

Israel seems to have an unfair perception that they're the only group in the region that's supposed to negotiate in any kind of faith, and they're expected to hold up to their side of any cease fire while their opponents seem to get more of a free hand in launching attacks.

Hamas is not going to bend, they don't give to s if their civilians are hurt during this war, they're probably ecstatic when they see casualty reports as they ride from hiding place to hiding place in ambulances and UN painted vehicles as this is a public relation boon for them. Hamas is never going to negotiate in good faith, they're never going to live up to a long term cease fire, and until they're gone or their power base and ability to bring in weapons through Egypt and Lebanon is gone they're not going to stop.

This one is going to the bitter end.

Sorry to pick and choose from your post Captain, but it's a long'un and I've responded to parts of it above. Well, sort of.

The problem with Hamas is that they are not as distinct from the Palestinian population as some would suggest. Theirs is a popular movement, one which was democratically supported. They are a symbol of power to a people that feels powerless. They are seen to do good in the communities in which they exist. They cannot be eliminated through violence because they subsist on violence: that is what feeds them and provides them with hopeless youth to be turned into suicide fodder. The only way to get rid of Hamas through force would be something tantamount to genocide - something I don't understand anyone here to be advocating.

Very clearly, Hamas is not a tenable option for the long term. Ultimately, they cannot exist in a state of peace because, as I've indicated, they would starve in such a circumstance. Sadly, I think the violence will continue, Hamas will continue to serve a purpose, and, as you indicated, this will go the distance.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Just need to get this off my chest.

It is beyond obvious that Hamas is totally at fault for this conflict. To say they WERE fighting an occupation because Israel controls the borders is beyond stupid. That would mean Canada is occupying the USA. It also ignores the obvious fact that one border is with Egypt. They do NOT represent the Palestinian people and neither care or fret about their welfare. They are a Iranian supplied and trained terrorist group that slaughtered a reportedly anywhere from 2000-20000 Palestinian rivals to grab control of Gaza.

Those that defend Hamas are seriously so far gone that no quips or quotes will bring these people back to reality. They are truly a joke.

The UN is a joke and really an adversary. Schools, ambulances and what not are there for Hamas military use. Even the Red Cross has become a terrorist excuser and helper.

That said......

I believe, and I really don't have an right answer for Israel here, that Israel is going about this the wrong way. Yes they needed to stop the rocket and mortar attacks. But this attack is going to turn out badly in the end. What are the goals? Actually, what are the attainable goals?
1) Reoccupy Gaza?
Hamas had no reason to attack Israel. Now the IDF is back occupying Gaza ans gives Hamas everything it needs(whatever that french term is for that) to rearm, recruit, and an obvious visible enemy (in their territory) to fight.
2) Remove Hama and put in the Paletinian Authority?
Ya that sure worked the first time. And did Hamas leave any alive? To do this the IDF would have to be Machivelian enough to make great parts of Gaza a parking lot. Ghengis Khan the SOBs.
3) Pull out and wait for the do-over?

This fight is wrong, not as in wrong morally, just not the answer to the problem. I don't have an alternative or fantastic answer but this was the wrong way to go about it.

HOZ, I disagree with the first part of your post, as indicated in my responses above. I agree with the conclusion you've reached though - this fight will not produce a solution.

[flylock shox]

And, hoping a subscription isn't needed to read this, the latest on the conflict from the New York Times.

[flylock shox]

And just in case the last link worked, here's an editorial piece by Nicholas Kristof which is more or less in line with my own thoughts.