Hamas' rockets have no guidance system. They can only aim at one target - Israel. Whether the part of Israel the rocket falls on is a school or an artillery battery is largely up to chance.

It is highly amusing that people consider Israel's attacks on Gaza - which have killed thousands of civilians over the years - to be acceptable because the Israelis claim they are "targeting Hamas' military capability", while Hamas' rockets (which have killed only a handful of people in the last 15 years) are considered an outrage because they can't claim to be targeting anything in particular.

If you have to run into a bomb shelter every time a rocket is fired out of Gaza you would be outraged. Saddam Hussein's scud missiles used CNN for their guidance system to correct the aim after each firing, but he got lucky and hit a US base in Saudi Arabia.

The difference is terrorists hide among civilians to make civilize nations not attack them. Hitler started the practice during WW II and the allies copied it. Terrorists don't care who they hit since they view everything as a target. The PLO's Arafat's first terrorism mission was to rob a gas station and he failed.

I'm missing something. Is a robbery terrorism now?

And this thread has been officially Godwin-ized. That's a new excuse for the bombing of German cities with no military value, though. Sad for you that the British commanders spoke openly of how targeting civilians in the bombing of cities was initiated by the British.

See: JM Spraight, Bombing Vindicated

Dresden.....

Hamas hasn't been relevant in years. Meshaal has made them a pawn of Qatar, and as such, they lost all credibility.

If the Abbasids had merely recognized their new Mongol rulers, the Mongols wouldn't have been forced to slaughter all those civilians in Bagdad in 1258. Stupid Iraqis.

@tolstoy -- "It is highly amusing that people consider Israel's attacks on Gaza . . ."

I am sure you make a point about asymmetrical violence, and as much as I detest Israeli politics, I believe they have the right to not have random Katyushas being fired into their cities. If the Fins started firing Katyushas into St. Petersburg every so often when as they enjoy too much vodka, I am sure the Russians would eventually respond with the military means at their disposal.

But, dirge, would the Russians nuke the Fins? Let's face it, that is a pretty apt comparison between non-guided missiles that have killed dozens of people and guided assaults on civilian population centers that have killed thousands.

The israeli's have not nuked Gaza. The point is:

THE ISRAELI'S HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF ROCKET ATTACKS ON THEIR CITIES.

Therefore, they can and will take military action. Since you have not responded the actual point, I can only assume that you fully support rocket attack on cities when they are carried out by Palestinians, since you only apparent position is that the Israelis are horrible for responding militarily.

"If the Fins started firing Katyushas into St. Petersburg every so often when as they enjoy too much vodka"

Your argument presupposes that Hamas just decides to lob off some rockets completely at random every now and then Israel is reluctantly forced to respond. While this is certainly what the Israelis wants everyone to believe, it is no reflection of reality at all. Hamas has nothing to gain from violence - they know Israel isn't going anywhere even if Hamas had ten million rockets. But the Israelis, OTOH, have a variety of motives to engage in limited conflicts which cost them so little (especially since the US taxpayer is footing the bill for so much of their defense), but inevitably feeds the perception (in the US at least) of Israelis as innocent victims of brutal and relentless Arab savages bent on their total extermination.

"THE ISRAELI'S HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF ROCKET ATTACKS ON THEIR CITIES."

AND THE PALESTINIANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF BOMBS, MISSILES, BULLETS, ARTILLERY BARRAGES, ASSASSINATIONS, NAVAL BLOCKADES, TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS, OVERFLIGHTS OF FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT, RESTRICTIONS ON FOOD IMPORTATION... (this list could go on for a long, long time!)

I'm sure you are correct Tolstoy, yet Hamas continues to persist. Yes Israel has a lot of military and political power they misuse, _and_ Hamas uses a strategy of polarization much used by terrorists for generations. Hamas maintains its political standing as long as there is war or threat of war. A peaceful Gaza would not support Hamas.

Politically, Hamas has a symbiotic relationship with Israel.

If Hamas is not bent on extermination of Israel, they need to fire their PR guy.

Israel has the bulk of the cards in their hands. Israel is in the position to make some kind of resolution happen, but they don't. That is obscene and unconscionable.

But it still doesn't justify Hamas targeting civilians.

Why is Hamas not held to any standards?

+1 to dirge's last two statements.

@ dirge

Hamas shouldn't get a pass either. My whole point is that both sides are committing/have committed war crimes and that no civilized nation should do business with either party.

okay

I would argue, Gunfighter, that the difference is that Israel has a capacity for change as its actions are 1. reactive in relation to the constant attacks and 2. (and more importantly) subject to the whims of its CURRENT regime.

Israel, being a democratic republic, CAN vote the warmongers and vote Olive Branch-minded folks in.

Plenty of Israelis want that...and I think in the next few years, barring something huge, that voice will overpower the Orthodoxy (which is already losing popularity amongst the youth of Israel...and the Jewish youth of the world, I might add) and that process will begin.

In short, Israel the State and the Current Israeli Regime ARE separable...and one can be saved, arguably by junking the other.

That's not the case with Hamas--

Hamas is a die-hard anti-Israel, anti-Jew, and anti-West machine.

The PLO and other organizations may make strides to end the rocketing and attacks on Israel (and in fairness the PLO has made such efforts in the past, and I'll again say I agree wholly that Israel's biggest mistake at the moment--from a political, PR and human rights perspective--is building those settlements in the West Bank against the PLO's protestations.)

HAMAS, on the other hand, will never cease--

They'll end Israel, the Jews, and the West, or die trying...and frankly, given their size, the latter is more likely, but as they could certainly take a great number of Israelis, Jews and Westerners with them before they go, I'm all for Israel stamping them out.

Hamas is neither monolithic nor does it have any real power anymore. The people carrying out rocket attacks right now are not from Hamas, but the Popular Resistance Committees. Hamas is desperate to maintain the ceasefire.

They're all a bunch of goddamned barbarians. One side calls God "Yahweh" and the other side calls God "Allah", and they'll continue to slaughter each other for overrated patches of sand and dirt for the foreseeable future.

So is a robbery terrorism or not?

obi is in favour if genocide, as long as it's not the Jews getting gassed.

Typical.....

"I'm all for Israel stamping them out. "
-Obi the Genocidal Jew

Gunfighter, there are an increasing number of people referring to their god as they wish while respecting that others have a different title for theirs. That's not just happening in the US - it's happening in Israel too. If there has ever been a big hope to end the many-thousand-years conflict between the two big religions and Judaism, today's the day to make it happen.

The best thing that could happen in the middle east is a new mongol invasion to wipe the slate clean.

Or maybe Great Chthulu.

I'm torn on Israel-Palestine.

On one hand, my anti-statism libertarian values make me want to side with Palestine, as it is the Israeli government and the Israeli settlements infringing on the lands owned by Arabs/Palestinians for over a thousand years. I can fully comprehend the moral reasons Palestine has to resisting Israeli rule.

On the other hand, my pro-long run utilitarian values make me want to side with Palestine, being the only truly free country in the Middle East, as well as the technological and foreign relations advantages Israel posses over other countries in the region forces me to acknowledge that Palestine would be better off if it let Israel assimilate them.

I also understand the moral arguments Israel has given all the anti-Semitism history has seen, and the middle east shows today.

Normally, whenever someone starts talking about Israel-Palestine I will take the opposite side that they do because I've seen and understand legitimate arguments for both sides. For example me and a friend (well former friend given that I haven't seen him in 2 years and he's called me fascist on 3 different occasions for my anti-Israel views) who is half-Jewish we're once kicked out of a rather nice restaurant cause we we're being too loud, and we continued our argument outside for 15-20 minutes. The following day, someone who was glad that I was so pro-Palestine found out that I wasn't when I argued on the pro-Israel side against him.

Now all that said, as a western observer, my pacifist views prevail and at the end of the day I oppose intervention of any kind in favour or against either side. (eg. I oppose the foreign aid US gives to Israel)

Had Iran not fallen in '79 I wonder if US support for Israel would be what it is today. Something tells me no.