Equally to blame, are you joking?

Please list for me the number of civilians intentionally targeted for destruction by Israeli ops.

Look, I am no apologist for Israel. I think they have treated the Palestinians abysmally since Israel was created as a separate state. That act alone was a terrible injustice, IMO. Nor do I support theocracies whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic. Israel is a de jure theocracy. But Israel plainly does not target civilians for intentional destruction. In contrast, many Palestinian groups do intentionally target the most vulnerable innocent people for their horrific depredations. That is revolting.

If Palestinians and israeli Jews would just watch the demographics they would come to the realization that the non-Jewish Israeli population is growing faster than the Israeli Jewish population. Israel better find an acceptable form of accommodation or they will simply become a minority in a country that despises them.

B

Yep (again).

Mike

My 2 cents is they like the money they have been getting and I don't believe they can survive without it.
So basically if they want to survive they must "march to the band".

Danny

That's the point I was addressing. It's seems the result (Hamas winning) is more important than the process (democracy).

I agree with what Botnst suggests in his first post - still too early to tell about how Hamas will govern.

Change in control of government generally means just change in ownership of exploitable resources. Arafat managed to pocket about $5 billion during his reign, hamas leaders will be doing the same. They will then have something to lose and take on roughly the same posture as the last group of exploiters.

Hamas is in over their heads.

Pragmatism (which drives consensual politics) says it is always better to have a friendly, corrupt dictatorship than an unfriendly democracy. It doesn't make sense to us purists who want everything to be neat and clean in life, but it's a fact of political life. Else we wouldn't tolerate....China, for example.

B

OH MY GOD I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!
Remember Pakistan and Pervaiz Musharraf? Remember how the US had shot him down and wouldn't accept his government because he came into power via a coup. Now who happens to be the biggest ALLY we have and the largest supporter on the war against terrorism? That's right, Pervaiz Musharraf of Pakistan and his government. The guy USA supported, Nawaz Shareef, who was the democratically, ousted by Pervaiz Musharraf in the military coup,....... well.........his political part is AGAINST the war on terror and would like Pakistan to distance itself from it. So if Nawaz Shareef was still in power, we wouln't have had Pakistan as an Ally and we would have failed even worse. We couldn't have survived in that region without Pakistan's back.
I agree with you there BOT:)

No comments anyone?

yes, Hamas is good for the Palestinians.. the world does not spin around US as much as you wish it did.

Yes, and hit men are good for the Mafia.... Care to defend them as well?...

Mike

are you calling George Washington a terrorist?

I guess he could have been considered as one by the Brits. Hmmmm a thought.

I do not believe that Washington targetted British civilians. Where in any of the history textbooks does it tell of Washington sending suicide bombers into civilian businesses for the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible? Not only just regular civilians, but women and children whenever possible. Why else would HAMAS target school busses and teenage dance clubs. I find it insulting that you could compare the actions of George Washington to HAMAS.

Thanks
David

Let me clarify even further, guerilla warfare is not terrorism, especially the sort that HAMAS participates in.

Thanks Again
David

Let's consider it.

(1) Washington identified himself to the British and (2) wore a uniform and (3) clearly displayed his arms. Washington's army (4) acted under good order and discipline common to armies (5) wore a uniform (6) displayed their weapons openly (7) generally treated prisoners well (especially as compared to British treatment of American prisoners, read about the prison ships in NY). Washington and his army (8) maneuvered under a common flag and (9) authorityof a common government. All of these characteristics conform with our MODERN Geneva Conventions, far more restrictive than the ancient rules of war followed by Continental armies of Washington's day.

Now take any modern group that you wish to compare to Washington.

I eagerly await your description.

Bot