Do I really need to explain the difference between mostly home-made rockets which are capable of killing individuals (1 to 5 or maybe 10) and cutting many of the most essential supplies to EVERYONE in the Gaza Strip?

I see that I do.

Let me guess, you want to pretend that the Gaza blockade is a form of collective punishment whilst the indisciminate launch of rockets (the fact the Palestinians dont have very good ones is pretty irrelevant, an incompetant murderer isnt morally better or worse than a competant one) and mortar rounds (circa a hundred today apparently) isnt.

So what is this supposed to teach us? THat It is morally more acceptable for Israel to bomb palestine back to the stone-age, launching hundreds of rockets a day and killing indiscriminately than it is for the to continue their blockade?

What about that wall the Israelis built a few years ago ? That's illegal but they won't budge on it.

It IS a form of collective punishment.



Israel has no intention of negotiating and will not cease until it controls all of the Gaza strip and West Bank. How much of the West Bank has it stolen already?

The Palestinians have a choice - die or fight. They're fighting.

I think you just consigned yourself to your own drawer.

And you think that Hamas does?

If some miracle were to occur and Israel suddenly and completely complied with all it's obligations under international law, do you really believe that the rocket attacks would stop?

You really need to be able to perform superhuman feats of twisted logic to think 1 civilian death is equally as bad as 400.

I salute you.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8654337.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8654337.stm

rl"There was NO WAR in GAZA, it was a MASSACRE"rl

I'd call it closer to extermination.

When someone has the clear intention of 'wiping you off the face of the earth' and then keeps lobbing rockets into your back garden, what the hell are you supposed to do. I don't blame Isreal for responding and its pointless doing so unless you are going to show them you mean business. Hamas are a blood thirsty bunch of terrorists and the people who voted for them have to also shoulder the blame as they new what they would do, after all it was the equivalent to a manifesto pledge.

You clearly have no knowledge of what Hamas is prepared to offer (such as recognition of the state of Israel, peace along the lines of the UN proposal which has been on the table for decades).

Ask yourself the question, if Hamas is the problem - why was no peace negotiated in the three years BEFORE Hamas assumed power?

There is a consistent line of Israeli action here - whoever is in power, choose only to recognise the party which is OUT of power. It's called "Divide and Conquer" and it's been a useful political tool since Julius Caesar perfected it.

You do understand the difference between wiping the STATE of Israel off the face of the earth (in favour of a TWO-STATE solution) and wiping every ISRAELI off the face of the earth?

Your naivety is charming, although somewhat surprising given how often you accuse others of it.


I didn't say that Hamas were the problem. That's just your usual knee-jerk response of assuming that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with your POV must automatically have the diametrically opposite POV. Hamas is certainly [ipart[/i of the problem, as is Israel. Two sets of murderous thugs cheerfully attempting to exterminate each other. Lovely.

Israel could easily have control of those areas. But they don’t.

The Palestinians also have a multitude of choices, not just the false dichotomy you have proposed.

And the scary thing is that you probably actually believe that.