A terrorist is a person who directs an attack at civilian targets, with the intention to kill civilians. Or who fights in civilian areas, with the intention that any attack against them will also kill civilians.

An attack directed at a military target in a civilian area is not terrorism. Nor is attacking a contested city held by terrorists. Because the only reason a civilian area is involved is because of the choices of the terrorist. The military attack in that area is one of necessity.

This is the only definition which can be legitimate.

The alternative definition is that terrorists can launch attacks from civilian areas at will and hide in civilian areas at will. And nations would be bound by the laws of war not to respond to such actions. A situation which you will agree is simply not viable.

Plus, I fail to see where you can constantly see the issue of religion in this situation. The issue is simply one of nationality. The religion and racism issues came later, generally as frustration with the situation grew.

The Israel Lobby is in transition due to the J Street revolt so it is unclear if it could still win a face down with the president on this. The American people should get angry though – not at Obama and Clinton – although they behaved foolishly, but at Israel for humiliating the U.S. with their brazen disregard for our wishes in spite of the aid. Israel is a charlatan – an aggressor posing as a friend and victim. Israel drives up our deficits and creates enemies for us in the Arab world.

Where are the former Soviet teritories gained by conquest – even those two, Georgia and Ukraine, that were gained by conquest several centuries ago?

Who controls the territories of all the former European Colonial Imperial powers now?

Who runs the Phillipines now?

What makes Israel think it can buck the trend of the last 60 plus years that has seen the expulsion of the British from India, the end of Apartheid, and the formulation of the policies and even doctrines of the UN.

Some people are putting faith in the integrity and security of nation states, and claiming rights to the spoils of war that are not generally recognized by the UN or almost any other state in the world. Israel is recognized by the UN as the occupying power but that came with obligations that the Isreali’s have generally ignored. The UN and the rest of the world has been paying the bills for the Palestinians’s schools, hospitals and food aid, for decades. Those bills have risen greatly in the last decade.

The powers that be – or who were – during the last century – who have tried to maintain their dominance and expoitation over others through force, have not faired well – or haven’t you noticed?

There’s something just a bit too Old Detestimental about it all. It is no wonder to me that the Islamic world is singing a popular tune of longing for the good ole days of the 8th century in as much as they face a state that tends to sing an equallty obnoxious song based on even older pretensions.

It’s a pity one can’t consult the almighty and his “registry of deeds” to see what his intentions might really be regarding the issues of land tenure and so called perpetual land grants.

What nation state on this planet is immune from criticism? What religion has managed to escape ridicule at one time or another? Not even religion has an entirely free hand to establish claims that effect the tangible world when they conflict with the values of the larger societies in which they live. And they certainly don’t escape critiicsm if those policies start to cost others far too much money for the dubious results they seem to be producing.

It might do the Israelis and the Islamic world well to get out of the era of Judges and Kings and the time of Mohammad and remember that they live on a planet where almost half of the population knows little or nothing about the religious pretentions of the participants even if they know anything at all about the current commotion.

And as a side note: Why the hell do people tend to find it easier to fight to the death to defend religions far easier than it is to express any reason why they love them at all?

I no longer know what a terrorist is or what practicing terrorism is.

According to the group of Americans who call themselves conservative (your type) the following are NOT terrorist acts and doing them doesn’t make you a terrorist:

Selling chemical weapons to leaders who kill their own people

Selling weapons non-allies in order to be used in warfare and to kill

Killing innocent people, women and children included

Being often engaged in wars

So since none of these things mean you’re acting as a terrorist, that word and it’s different forms mean nothing to me.

How am I showing bias when I say both are in the wrong? It’s all religious based hatred on both sides, not a rational reason for it. And come on Anon you’re a smart guy you know i’m playing with words when i’m saying rocks vs jets but the truth isn’t very far off. Hamas has primitive homemade rockets and 60 year old kaleshnikov’s and Israel has the finest US made jets/bombs/weapons money can buy.

It seems that the untangling, the undoing has begun. In Morocco, Clinton just declared that the US could not want peace more that the Israelis or Palestinians. I suspect that in diplomacy, the opposite is true. The US is trying to decuple. In a sensible and delicate way: through the peace process.

there’s nothing to impose!

so, if the israelis don’t want to live with the palestinians, they have only two highly distasteful options: (A) explusion of the palestinians as they use up more the palestinian’s land or (B)…well, we don’t want to go there!

really, my plan is the best plan proposed to date. what more could the israelis want than the complete removal of the palestinians? the palestinians would certainly be much better off in the US than anywhere else.

it’s a ‘win-win’! (i’m next for that peace prize!!!)

-Palestinians accept the land they have now.
-Settlements remain and their safety must be ensured.

Israel has tried giving up land for peace, and it doesn’t work. All it does is create the perception of weakness, and further demands. Gaza and Lebenon being prime examples.

Israel will NEVER accept a one state solution. And a one state solution cannot be imposed on them.

Gaza and the West Bank have never been considered part of Israel. The populations in those regions can grow all they please. But as they will never be part of Israel, their numbers matter very little in the scale of things.

People who support the one state solution know it will destroy Israel. Or they think that the one state solution is the de facto result; that somehow Gaza and West Bank will magically become part of Israel if peace fails to occur. Neither views which are realistic.

The truth? There is only two results to the Israeli-Arab conflict. A two-state solution which Palestine is willing to make concessions for peace. Or simply the status quo we see now, continuing now and forever.

If Israel cannot secure the former, it will settle for the latter.

I think that you will agree that the Palestinians have been doing a bit more then ‘throwing rocks at jets’ to have bombs dropped on their heads, Ham.

In the last fifty years we have seen multiple invasions of Israel, which only led to more lost land. When war was proven a failure, suicide bombing campaigns started against Israeli citizens. When the walls and checkpoints prevented this, rockets were launched at Israeli cities.

If Palestine wants peace tomorrow, all they need to do is stop commiting terrorist acts.

If Israel wants peace tomorrow, they would need to stop defending themselves from terrorist attacks, allow uncontrolled weapon smuggling, give away all their military gains and pretty much pack up and exodus the entire nation of Israel. Because those are the only peace terms the Palestinians will accept.

Plus there is the principle of legitimate military targets, collateral damage and proportionality.

Launching a missile at an Israeli city is illegal. Basing that missile launcher in Gaza is even more illegal. But dropping a bomb on a missile launcher in Gaza is not illegal. It is a legitimate military target and a legitimate response. Even if civilians can be expected to die in the strike.

The UNHCR has long been biased towards Israel, because of Arab bloc voting. And the UN has been biased towards Israel, because it knows that Israel will be the one guaranteed to restrain itself once sufficient international outcry is made.

Nor is any distinction made between the actions of terrorist groups (defined as those who attack civilian targets for the purposes of killing civilians) and the self defensive actions of Israel (who only attacks civilian areas in strikes against military value targets).

And while you may scoff at the concept that Israel was defending itself during Operation Cast Lead, I would be very interested in the alternative which you believe should have happened.

Allow open borders so Gaza can smuggle arms? Allow terrorist tactics to dictate terms? Just sit back for a few months while Gaza launches missiles at Israeli cities? Send in some Israeli cops into Gaza to arrest the terrorists? Mobilize the entire Israeli military and force the entire Gaza population into Egypt, like Russia drove out the Georgians in South Ossetia?

Perhaps when it comes to bias and media programming, you should practice what you preach?