TCS Daily

Right on Target

By J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss - October 30, 2006 12:00 AM

On October 23, after ten more Qassam missiles were fired from northern Gaza into Israel in forty-eight hours, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) troops entered the area in search of the launchers and their Palestinian crews. Confronted by a large group of gunmen in the town of Beit Hanoun, the IDF patrol exchanged fire with the heavily armed men, nine of whom were killed while twenty were injured. [None of the patrol members was harmed.] Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was quick to accuse Israel of carrying out a "heinous massacre," noting that this "ugly crime against the Palestinian people" took place on the first day of Eid al-Fitr, the holiday that marks the end of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting.

Left out of Abu Mazen's carefully scripted indignation was any mention of who the deceased were. One of them, according to the well-connected DEBKA news agency, was Ata Shinbari, senior commander of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in Gaza, which has been active in the missile offensive and which teamed up with Hamas in June to kidnap IDF Corporal Gideon Shalit. Others were lower-ranked militants with the PRC, which lent vital support to members of the al-Qaeda linked cell that carried out the kidnapping of Corporal Shalit. These have been identified as Muataz Durmush, cousin of PRC leader Zakariah Durmush, Mahmoud Bastal, Taher Atawa, Ahmed Azzam, and Ibrahim Kahil.

Let us remember that the kidnapping and continued captivity of Corporal Shalit, as well as the daily shower of rockets across an internationally recognized border, are each individually casus belli (acts of war) which, as we argued previously in another context, fully and legally justify the use of force by Israel acting in its own self-defense. However, what if, instead of running into him and his accomplices and being forced to exchange fire as happened in Beit Hanoun, the IDF had come into possession of actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorist commander Shinbari and members of the al-Qaeda cell? What should it do?

Normally, when a democratic state governed by law is confronted with this problem it turns to the government that has sovereignty over the territory where the wanted criminal is located. It then asks that government to take the person into custody and, according to the relevant international conventions in force between the two states, to extradite him or her for trial. Alas, Israel does not live in a normal neighborhood. Since the Jewish state's voluntary disengagement from Gaza more than a year ago -- a step which we demonstrated Israel was never legally obliged to take -- the PA has stepped up to assume the responsibilities of a civil society. Quite to the contrary, the PA, now controlled by the terrorist group Hamas, refuses to recognize Israel's very existence. Needless to say, PA cooperation on security issues like the arrest of militants, painfully inadequate in the best of times, has become non-existent since Hamas swept PA elections earlier this year.

In such cases, international law countenances self-help: Israel may justifiably pursue the terrorists, using the necessary force to bring them back to its territory for trial and eventual punishment. But that is easier said than done in a densely populated area like Gaza, where any incursion to arrest the likes of the late and unlamented Shinbari would have quickly degenerated into urban warfare with massive collateral injury ("ugly crimes") for the otherwise ineffectual Abu Mazen -- and for his well-wishers among the chattering classes abroad -- to wax indignant over.

In response to this unique set of circumstances, Israel has honed its policy of terrorist preemption or, as some have labeled it, targeted killing. It is a counterterrorism tool that, although not to be taken up lightly, deserves consideration as America begins the sixth year of her own global war on terrorism.

The targeting of terrorists for individual punishment, when extradition is not available, is not new. As last year's Stephen Spielberg film purports to document, after the massacre of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Israeli forces hunted down those responsible. However, the use of the tactic to preempt violence rather than to respond to it is of more recent vintage. In 1995, Israeli agents killed Palestinian Islamic Jihad chief Fathi Shaqaqi, leaving that group in disarray for years. Nonetheless, it was the start of the second Palestinian intifada in late 2000 which gave the policy its current impetus. Hard numbers are difficult to come by, especially since the Israeli government, true to the Jewish reverence for life, does not officially trumpet the counterterrorism successes obtained by the killing of killers. However, according to B'Tselem, the leftist "Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories" which opposes pre-emption, and whose numbers may therefore be inflated, between 2000 and 2005 Israeli security forces successfully targeted 203 Palestinian terrorists, collaterally killing an additional 114 people.

Can the policy of terrorist preemption be justified?

Some have criticized it as counterproductive, arguing that it perpetuates a "cycle of violence" and therefore causes more Israeli casualties. While undoubtedly targeted killings raise tensions, especially when targeted terrorists have taken shelter among innocent bystanders who are themselves hurt or killed, it is unquestionably true that the policy seriously degrades terrorist capacity. To cite just one example from the data sets maintained by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, while the number of Palestinian suicide attacks launched against Israeli civilians increased steadily since 2000, the number of deaths (not counting those of the terrorist perpetrators) declined from a high of 5.4 per incident in 2002 to 0.11 last year. The reason? Quite simply, while there may be an "infinite" number of angry Palestinians, the number of adept and experienced teachers and planners is quite finite.

Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch counter that, whether or not it is effective, preemptive counterterrorism is simply "illegal." However, this position does not withstand scrutiny when one applies the relevant jurisprudence. First, Israel, like all sovereign states, has what the United Nations Charter refers to as the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" against armed attack. The attacks launched from Gaza and other Palestinian areas clearly constitute armed attacks. And, since the legislative elections in January, the would-be Palestinian state is governed by a group committed to the destruction of, and essentially at war with, the State of Israel. Second, while international humanitarian law, as codified in the Geneva Conventions, particularly common article 3, protects civilians, members of terrorist groups are ipso facto (illegal) non-uniformed combatants in an armed conflict who may be targeted even when they are not engaged in a belligerent action. Recall, for example, U.S. targeting during World War II of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, a legal uniformed combatant, while the officer was riding in airplane en route to Bougainville in the Solomon Islands. Third, the targeting of terrorists, especially those who purposely hide themselves among the civilian population, is always a difficult proposition which carries the risk of collateral effects. However, terrorists should not be allowed to reap the benefits of their cynical choices and one must also weigh the dangers to the civilian population of deploying the forces necessary to apprehend them in hostile urban settings like Gaza. (See our earlier extensive discussion of the norm of proportionality.)

Some, while conceding the practicality and legality of selective targeting in Israel's counterterrorism operations, nonetheless question the ethics of this practice. It turns out, however many ethical objections are, upon closer examination, more moralistic than moral. Targeting killing takes place within the context of war and must -- and has -- been carried out in a manner consistent with the discrimination and proportionality required by the just war tradition. If done not out of hatred but out of the will to incapacitate those who would threaten lives by inciting or carrying out terrorist attacks, it serves the additional legitimate end of protecting the innocent. Furthermore, Israel has largely exhausted all other options. It has tried unsuccessfully to get the Palestinian authorities to stop the terrorists. By disengaging from Gaza, it gave the Palestinians exactly what they claimed they wanted: lives free from day to day run-ins with Israeli "occupiers." What Israel got in return was a wave of violence and the election of a group of terrorists whose Covenant commits them to "obliterating" the Jewish state "from every inch of Palestine."

In sum, while not every effective practice is legal, and not every legal practice is ethical, Israel's preemptive counterterrorism efforts are right on target with respect to efficacy, law, and morality.

Fatwas galore currently call upon young Muslim men to wage jihad. They tempt them by describing in detail the great reward they will receive, the status of martyrs in Paradise, and the virgins who await them there. With its increasing need to reconcile scarce resources to broad responsibilities in defending itself and its allies against this specter, the United States would do well to arm itself with all appropriate weapons, including one that its Israeli ally has developed to comply with a higher obligation, incumbent upon governments and individuals, to do everything possible to protect innocent lives in peril (pikuach nefesh).

J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. Both are adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.


The author states that according to B'Tselem "between 2000 and 2005 Israeli security forces successfully targeted 203 Palestinian terrorists, collaterally killing an additional 114 people." And then goes on, without giving any justification for the assumption, to state that these numbers are probably inflated.

These numbers reflect only a small fraction of the civilians being killed. The numbers being referred to are these:

Palestinians killed during the course of a targeted killing: 337.

Palestinians who were the object of a targeted killing: 208.

But they occur within this larger context:

Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces: 3,769 (OT's), 61 (Israel).

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians: 235 (OT's), 462 (Israel).

So that overall, the IDF has killed 797 Israeli civilians, while the IDF has in the same time killed 3,830 Palestinians.

These numbers certainly reflect a problem on the part of the Palestinians. But they reflect a much greater problem on the part of the IDF. And if the author feels he has reason to doubt the accuracy of B'Tselem's numbers, let him produce better ones.

Note that B'Tselem says of their numbers "Click on the numbers for a list of individual names and details about the circumstances of their death."

give as good
When it comes to terrorizing your neighbors, the Israelis can give as good as they get. When it comes to honoring international treaties and UN resolution, Israel can flaut 'em with the best of 'em.

Just one fact among many: southern Lebanon is littered with unexploded clusters from cluster bombs used against civilians. Note the Geneva conventions do not say "no cluster bombs against civilians unless you have George Bush sign a presidential finding saying there are Hezbullah among them", the Geneva conventions says "no cluster bombs against civilians, period."

I second Roy Bean's other examples.

Why do liberals attack the only democracy in the region?
Because they can?

Here we go again
Note the posts claiming it's all Israel's fault! Yes, Roy and LG will continue to spout how those awful Jews are responsible for all the murder and destruction in the region. The poor, brave, defenseless Palestinians do not deserve to be treated this way!

Find another like will ya. The murdering Palestinian terrorist don't deserve anyones sympathy.

As my across the street neighbor was
...setting up a rocket-launcher targeting my house, I shot him!

Why even bother, the Left just hates Jews....
Roy and LG are caught up in the liberal kant that Israel is the cause of all the problems in the Mideast (other than the U.S., of course.) It is apparent to me that this Leftist antagonism to Israel is simply a more sophisticated -- and therefore acceptable -- form of anti-semitism. Old fashion jew-baiting is no longer acceptible, even to the Leftist mentality. Therefore, if you substitue "Israel" for "Jew" -- jin up a case that Israel is the fly in the ointment of the Mideast -- you can beat up on Jews to your heart's content while pretending to be concerned about the poor, mistreated Palestinians. Of course, you have to ignore the fact that the Palestinians create their own hell by attacking Israelis whenever possible and therefore are subject to retribution. But that's easy. Afterall, it's just Jews who are being slaughtered. Not like they're real people, or anything. If the Israelis would just act like the Jews of Europe, circa 1939, and go peacefully to their eradication, the Left would have no problems with them.

How dare you!
In the eyes of our liberal nuts, if he was an Arab muslim you are a murderer.

Don't you know that only Arabs are allowed to murder indiscriminatly? Don't you know that you are wrong if you don't just stand there and die?

BTW, Way to go. I hope there are millions more just like you!

Why is it
that you cannot understand that in this conflict it is the Palestinians which are the aggressors? All that the one-sided casualty figures prove is that the Palestinians are willing to sacrifice an inordinate number of their own people in pursuit of their goals?

So, what goal of the Palestinians is so important that they are willing to incur such losses?

More utter rubbish
Go see my reply to RB.

Don't bother replying unless you are prepared to cite the international treaties which Israel has violated.

No matter what they do liberals can't be anti-semites. Why, they are Liberals! Only conservatives can be bigots, or so roy and LG will tell you.

These guys are such bigots they can't even see out of the gutter they are so far into.

BTW, good post and very accurate.

Making it up again
You say that being anti Israel means being anti semitic. Tell that to the Hasids in Brooklyn who think Israel is an abomination because (1) it is a secular state (doesn't inforce Sabbath rules, etc), and (2) was/is not ruled by the messiah.

If someone says something against Israel, maybe you should answer what they say rather than your fantasy about who they are.

because . . .
The bottom line is that Zionists have been taking Arab land field by field, tree by tree, house by house, usually backed by force, for a century. This process is ongoing today on the West Bank (Please don't give me a line about Israel withdrawal.)

Gonocide against the Palistineans
Why is it that when someone isn't willing to see innocent Palistineans killed that they are automaticly anti-Israel? Israel and Hezbollah are not that differnat, both are willing to murder innocents in order to further thier goals and neither deserves our support.

Well, somebody's making it up...
No, LG, I didn't say that because you are anti-Israeli, you are anti-semitic. I said just the opposite: because you are anti-semitic, you are anti-Israeli. Go back and read my post. The fact that you can't see who is causing the trouble in the region, the fact that you always give a by to the Palestinians in their hatred of Jews and Israel, the fact you've never condemned even the most horendous act of Palestinians -- blowing up night clubs, gunning down children in school buses, lobbing missiles indescriminately into residentials sections -- you know, the usual acts of "honorable" Palestinian terrorists -- informs me that you just don't give a sh-t about Jews. Thus, I don't think it a far leap to conclude that you and your ideological bretheren are anti-semitic (and don't lecture us that semites include Arabs. As you well know, there is only one meaning of the term).

The fact that you are able to find a very small, very conservative Jewish sect that agrees with you that Israel has no right to exist does nothing to change my view that you are a modern Jew-Baiter who would have felt quite at home with the National Socialists of Germany in the 30's and 40's.

How is buying land now equated with force?

If Israel were to start condemning the US, liberals would start supporting it.
or if the US were to start condemning Israel.

since 1906 the Zionists have been stealing land? Funny, I thought they were buying land from the Ottoman Empire until the locals pressed to make such purchases illegal. Then when the British took the land from the Ottomans such purchases became legal once again.

Then the UN stepped in, divided the land, and the local Arabs vacated the land to make way for the Arab forces to obliterate the Jews. These are now your present day Palestinians.

Also note that the Jews, not "Zionists", were kicked out of every other Arab nation and absorbed into Israel. The Arab countries were quite capable of absorbing the Arab refugees just as Israel was capable of absorbing the displaced Jews of the Middle East. Yet they did not. Why? Because they make a nice piece of propaganda. Add to this the steady stream of Pallywood propaganda and you get the liberal idea that it is the evil Jews, sorry "Zionists", who are the aggressors.

Take look at what the Israelis have been fighting all these years. You and Roy like to see the word Zionist and blindly add a nuance to it that makes you believe that the Palestinians just want to destroy the country of Israel, not the Jews. I suggest you take a look at MEMRI and other translations of their own words. They want all Jews dead. Pure and simple. That is why they voted to be led by Hamas, a terrorist organization.

I said it before and I say it again, if Palestinians laid down their arms and declared peace there would be peace. If Israel laid down its arms and declared peace there would be millions of dead Jews.

Since I possess a sense of right and wrong I would tend to side with those who provide human rights to men, women, homosexuals, Arabs, Jews, Christians, and children than those who strap bombs on children, deliberately target civilians, enshrine those who perform such actions, and call for genocide.

But hey, that's me.

Make that,
if someone consistently lies about Israel, consistently holds Israel to a standard that it refuses to hold Israel's opponents to, consistently declares that Jews have no right to own land in the middle east.

Then you are probably talking to an anti-semite. The fact that most liberals are also anti-semites is documented by their own words.

what innocent Palistineans?
The fact remains that Israel goes out of it's way to avoid killing civilians. Even putting it's own soldiers lives at risk to do so.

Palestinians declare that there is no such thing as a civilian Israeli, so that they are free to kill any Jew that they see.

The fact that you refuse to see these well documented differences says more about you than I ever could.

Most importantly...
in regards to this:

>"Tell that to the Hasids in Brooklyn who think Israel is an abomination because (1) it is a secular state (doesn't inforce Sabbath rules, etc), and (2) was/is not ruled by the messiah."

Make a note how they have a big problem with Israel's existence since they believe it violates their religion. Then note how they do not commit acts of terrorism in order to fight that "abomination". Why do you think that is?

Innocent Palestinian Deaths...
Clearly the death of any innocent needs to be condemned in a civilized world. I condemn such death. The question on the table, however, is who is the cause? LG and the Liberal wing of the democrat party believes the Israeli government/military is the cause. I disagree. The cause of these deaths are the terrorists and terrorist goverment of the PA who hide among the civilian innocents when lobbing missiles into Israel. The same terrorists who hide their headquarters in the midst of school buiildings, hospitals and religious centers. The same terrorists who hope and pray for "collateral damage" to innocent civilians in order to garner support from the world's media and Leftists. That is who to condemn. The facts, Acougar, are clear. If the Palestinians stop trying to kill Israelis, the conflict would end overnight. But as long as you and other Leftists hold that Israel is as guilty of crimes against humanity as the Palestinian terrorists and their government, then the terrorists will continue their murder of the peace and justice of the region.

Just a side note...
cluster bombs are perfectly legal. Israel did not target civilians with them but targeted military targets. Perhaps you would like to show me the official UN condemnation of Israel and the accusation of war crimes by the UN? Israel is not popular amongst the UN crowd so I am sure they have ample evidence to do so.

So please, present the evidence of deliberate cluster bomb use on civilian targets.

compare pali/isrealis to Kent state shootings
If I stand in a crowd of unarmed students and I toss a coke bottle full of lit gas at a group of armed soldiers, who is responsable when they fire back and hit & kill the unarmed girl next to me that made the front page of life magazine?

I am.

and the corollary is the Palis are.

and by supporting them the liberals are.

I think I just developed a world court case to try the libies for the deaths of both the palis and the Isrealis.

this could be fun.

Your comment
is utterly beneath contempt. I asked you to come back with a specific list of treaties and obligations you claimed Israel had violated and you come back with this piece of flatulence.

So, put up or shut up. You made an allegation about treaty violation. Now substantiate it.

Or get lost.

Adding to your comment...
since the Israelis seized the West Banks and Gaza in a war in which the Arab forces were the aggressor, international law dictates that they have the right to keep the land until such matters are determined through the peace treaty process. Without such a treaty the property remains under the influence of the defenders: Israel. This is why Israel is NOT breaking international law in regards to these lands.

This is why the Sinai was returned to Egypt and Jordan could have petitioned for the return of the West Bank but left it to the PLO.

In fact, Israel is the pretty much the only country to come into existence through legal partition and land purchase. Had the Arabs really been looking out for the poor "Palestinians", they would have had their own state in 1937, 1947, and 1949. Had Arab leadership been rational and unruled by genocidal hate they could have ended Israeli involvement in Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 and 2000 as well. But, as that pedophile Arafat was known to say, Israelis love life but the Palestinians love death. He was proven correct when Hamas was voted into power.

All true
But that's not why I'm annoyed. LG made an allegation and then used a cheap dodge to avoid proving it.

That miserable piece of **** can either put up or shut up.

Too true...
LiberalTalkingPointsMan is a truly devout worshipper of the liberal gods of equivalency and revisionism. His preferred method of debate is rather hit and run. Don't expect anything factual or reality based.

That's the problem with this forum
I don't have a problem with the allegation he made. If it's true, drag it out and we can have a look at it. No one here is going to pretend that Israel is pure in everything it does. But he doesn't. He makes a cheap throw-away and then avoids substantiating anything.

I detest politics by sloganeering. Radicals on both left and right do it, and it's idiotic.

That is the problem with all political forums.
>"I detest politics by sloganeering. Radicals on both left and right do it, and it's idiotic."

Could not agree with you more.

You listening TJ?

No Subject
Clearly the vast majority of actions by Palistinean militants can not be supported. Thier targeting of civilians is a crime and it delegitimizes thier entire movement. At the same time, Israel continues to expand and provoke a desperate people. We should not be supporting either side.

Israel used terrorism to found a European state in the middle east, the terrorist response while trajic is not our problem.

like a child
You said what I said you said, that I am anti Israel because I am anti-semitic. Actually, I'm not anti Israel, any more than Israelis in the Peace Now movement are anti Israel (or Democrats are anti American).

You're like a little kid. Your mom tells you you can't have candy & you throw a tantrum: "Mommy hates me, she hates all kids, she wants to kill all kids . . . " Grow up.

By the way, it's rude, even by conservative tcsdaily standards, to call someone a Nazi.

of course not
TJ and often Markthe Great seldom listen to anything that isn't in direct agreement with their own beliefs, much like Lemuel (eric) and LG (among others) on the left. They may hear (read) you but they aren't listening.

Put LG, eric/lemuel and a few others
on the list to be tried and I will help you! Very good comparison BTW, thanks.

You suffer from the same disease Pauled
Want to take on monopolies and minimum wage again?

Dave, I hate to burst your bubble...
...but I live in a "blue" state where every Jew I know is a liberal.

I doubt very much that they're anti-semitic. :)

Remember, people of Jewish descent are legitimate military targets.
Not as if the Palistineans are targeting civillians specifically for the purpose of killing as many as possible, is it?

You need psychological help, LG, if you cannot see the moral difference between a people who are defending themselves against a ruthless enemy that will use any and all means to slaughter them wherever they are found.

Those means include locating rocket launchers in the middle of civillian areas for the specific purpose of ensuring that as many civillians as possible are killed, so that their corpses can be paraded around by Hezbollah propagandists to make Israel look evil. Those cluster bombs were used against legitimate military targets, and used only after the Israeilis dropped leaflets to tell people what would happen.

If you cannot draw the line between the two sides yourself, lock yourself away in a padded room before you hurt somebody.

Hi Mark!!
I knew if a rattled enough chains someone would come a callin!

more differences
You said above that there wasn't much difference between the two combatants but here's some. Palestinians don't have to send their kids to school in armoured busses, but the Israelis do. Palestinians believe in 'ethnic cleansing', thus any jew found is tortured and killed, but Israil allows about two million palestinians to live in israel, and lets them go to colleges, and let's them elect members of parliment, and lets them live in peace, and doesn't allow the barbaric arab practice of 'honour killing' their own women. Some differences, right?
BTW, as a former terrorist hunter myself, I can confirm tht the policy of 'targeted killings' does indeed work. The palestinian terrorists would also do it, but they are too incompetent to, thus they resort to targeting women and children.

excellent post
The Palestinians are not wanted in arab countries as citizens. They are know as trouble makers and malcontents. This is why they were given land next to Israel. Nobody else wants them.

bad neighbors
I would note that southern Lebanon is also littered with Katusha rockets and Hezbo terrorists to send them. I wonder what Geneva would say about rockets fired purposefully into civillian areas when military targets abound?

>"By the way, it's rude, even by conservative tcsdaily standards, to call someone a Nazi."

Unless you are referring to Republicans, conservatives, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc. The liberal rules regarding the use of the term Nazi suffer a double-standard.

Ok, you load the train, I'll keep the list.
Is that concentration camp in Montana Clintoon built to jail the western militias still there?

The Kent state thing has been bothering me for a while & I felt it was a piece of ground that needed to be refought.

I grew up LOVING the 60s protest songs & still do at an emotional level even though at an intelectual level I resent the hell out of the meaning I now understand.

The Neil Young lines about it need refuting since it sets a precidence that has NOT been challenged since then.

In old Neils view, the response probably should have been "proportional". This mindlessness should be revisited and addressed as it directly impacts todays fuzzy thinking.

Busted bubbles..."blue states" and anti-semites....
Whatever: I never said that to be liberal is to be anti-semitic. I am saying that many liberals, of the LG,Roy and Lemuel ilk, are anti-semitic. The fact that a majority of Jews in America today continue to vote and act as liberals, is, I suggest, one of the great quandaries of our time. This is changing, however. Unfortunately, it is a slow change. Most American Jews support Israel as a major plank in their political life. As the Left continues to condemn and attack Israel, I suspect Jews will increasingly part company with the democrat party. Increasingly,Jews are joining with Republicans and Libertarians in their support of Israel. I for one, welcome them and hope they stay.

I love when hypocrites get self righteous
What was it Jesus said about getting the plank out of your own eye before complaining about specks in others?

"not our problem" It would be nice if this were true
But it's not true.

even though precidence CAN be found to support your statements, such as records of the Irgun using terroism to influence the british, it doesnt follow that it isnt our problem.

No matter the source of all this ME hatred, the hard cold facts on teh gournd in this conflict and all others of a similar nature come down to this: legitimacy comes from picking a specific point in time as your basis for a claim.

In the Jews case, they are going back a bit farther then most groups do, but in the end they COULD sue the Italian state for kicking them out of their own country some 1920 years ago.

the Palis cliams dont stand up to legal scrutny, the bulk of them moved to Isreal AFTER 47. The ones that WERE there and left did so not because they were forced by the Isrealis, (the bulk of THAT twaddle has been debunked HARD) But because they thought the Jews would do what an Arab would do, kill all the males, make sex slaves out of the females. They were told this via radio by the large Arab states around them that were gearing up for an invasion of Isreal.

face it, even yasser arafat wasnt native to that land, he was an Egyptian with NO rights to Isreal in ANY way shape or form. The only reason the Palis exist is as a knife at the throats of the Isrealis in the hands of greater powers that are too cowardly to attack Isreal directly(any more).

Isreal asdsorbed almost the exact same number of jewish people exiled from the surrounding Arab states as the palis had in their first camps, the rabs COULD have adsorbed them too if 1 they wanted too, 2, the palis hadnt acted so poorly (they tried to overthrow the governments of both lebenon & Jordan while guests in these countries, Jordan shelled them and killed 20 thousand, you dont read this much)

But the salient is that Isreal IS our ally by treaty, if we pull out on them, 1 we COMPLETELY lose credibility with the rest of our allies, 2 we abandon the only democracy in the ME to fall to our mortal enemies, 3 the Isrealis are taking heat WE would have to take if they werent there.

The facts are this, the rabs would simply find something else to fixate on and foam at the mouth if not for Isreal.

abandoning Isreal is NOT in our best interests and you will have to show me mechanics to convice me otherwise.

*****...Anti-semites and rudeness...
LG...if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck, the odds are, you are a duck. Your own words condemn you as an anti-semite, anti-Israeli jew-baiter.

About the only place we disagree is economics
And we aren't far off there. Yet you act as if I propose a socialist/communist state. Where we do disagree you are full of crap on a lot of what you post on the issue and it is strictly your opinion; but you act as if it obvious fact. Then you go on with your opinion in spite of being given the actual statistics from a reputable (O.K. it was the federal government, somewhat reputable) source.

As for monopolies, I conceded you were right on all but a few points; what more do you want?

Oh yes, absolute capitulation to your way of thinking.

You were saying? (About not being a right wing zealot)

Never took off
don't know what happened to the money, but the place was never built.

Proportional defense/warfare is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. And, in the overview, it has never been done.

Kent State was a situation that, sadly, went probably just as it should have. The response was proportional to the perceived threat. What caused the problem was the lack of response to such things in the past.

While I was as saddened as anyone when those students were shot, they shold have expected this response, and worse, when facing armed military personnel.

Many of he things you support are indistinguishable from socialism.
What I stated regarding minimum wage is absolute fact. It is not just my opinion. If you disagree, crack open any economics text book.

Regarding regulations, especially govt control of medicine, the same goes.

You have been the one who keeps going on and on about those who disagree with you being dogmatic ideologues, while you and you alone are capable of having an open mind.

I still haven't forgiven you for your claim that the only reason I take the positions that I do is because I want the rich to get richer.

That kind of ignorant crack reveals the intolerant mindset that is behind many of the positions you take.

For example there's your claim that the only way to get to be the head of a major corporation is by doing evil things, therefore the heads of all major corporations are evil.

The aggressor
I can't imagine how anyone could see the Israelis as anything but the aggressors. They come over from Europe, take over the land and progressively dispossess the Palestinians from their homes. Who wouldn't be angry at that? What we see from the Palestinians is crimes of revenge. What we see from the Israelis is a systematic displacement of an entire people, and the theft of their land through sophisticated military means.

The goal of the Palestinians? When you take so much from a man he has nothing left to lose, you create an enemy who cannot be cajoled into making peace with you. He has nothing left from which to make that peace.

TCS Daily Archives