Skip to main content

Bombing Vindicated is the title of a 1944 book by J.M. Spaight, an official in the U.K. Air Ministry during World War II. An anti-Semitic Web site actually offers the book online, which is the only reason why I'm linking to it.

Spaight's argument is quite simply that the saturation bombing of German cities by Allied bombers was perfectly justified. To say that this position has been disputed would be a marvel of understatement.

I believe the carpet bombing of Germany by the Allies was a war crime. However, I recently suggested in a diary that Israel respond to rocket fire from Gaza (or Lebanon, for that matter) with an exactly proportional response, i.e., the same number of rockets, with the same amount of explosive, fired right back in the direction the rockets came from, and — I guess this was the rub — without regard for where the missiles fell.

We'll do this diary in the form of an FAQ.

Madness! Won't Israel be labeled a terrorist state?

Yeah, too late on that one. For better or worse, no matter how justified Israel may be in the action that it takes, the slightest violence that it perpetrates, even if solely in self-defense, is "terrorism" to some people. These people will never learn.

Won't innocent people would be killed?

Too late on that one also, on both sides of the border. However, as one reader pointed out, fewer innocent people would be killed on the Palestinian side if what I suggest were implemented. After all, apologists for Hamas all through the war this past winter constantly talked about how "Qassams don't kill anybody" or "They don't kill very many people" or what have you, while we heard how F-14s were being used to take out members of Hamas and "commit genocide" against the Palestinian people.

We can gauge whether or not Qassams actually kill people by seeing whether anyone in Gaza is killed when they get launched into Gaza rather than out of Gaza.

Can we reasonably suppose that the U.S. would continue to support Israel if Israel took up such a military strategy?

Why not? As noted, it would take fewer lives. Furthermore, Israel has undertaken larger-scale operations with poor accuracy, famously hitting the Lebanese village of Qana in 1996. Israel didn't lose U.S. support over that.

Also, consider that the U.S. is currently undertaking a less than accurate policy of bombing right now in the Afghanistan war, using unmanned drones that are sometimes dropping payloads on Pakistan and not Afghanistan. Not exactly a whole lotta room for criticizing others when your own country does the same.

So you're really serious?

I honestly don't see why not. Look at it this way: Let Israel take one week where it does everything that it's supposed to do under a truce agreement. Let's assume that the siege and/or blockade of Gaza is totally lifted, with everything that this entails (water and humanitarian aid arriving, etc.). And now let's assume (because it's a fair assumption, given whom we're talking about) that Hamas will launch Qassams at Israel.

Let Hamas launch them and let Israel not respond for one week. Then let Israel respond rocket for rocket. Nobody will be able to argue after a week of unanswered bombing that Israel has not exercised restraint. Further, no one will be able to argue that the response was disproportionate when the response, when it comes, is identical.

Come on: really?

OK, I'll cave and put one twist into my argument here, if people are genuinely still concerned about Israel "keeping the moral high ground." Let Israel aim rockets of equal weight and destructive power to Qassams before firing them back at Hamas. That would be one leg up on Hamas.

Doesn't this violate principles of just war?

Depends. Questions of jus ad bellum, i.e., is it right to go to war, are academic once the war itself begins. Jus in bello, however, translated roughly as "just conduct during war" asks three things: (1) Distinction, i.e., distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. If Israel aims its missiles, then it meets this criterion, while Hamas doesn't; (2) Proportionality (see above); and (3) Minimum force, i.e., that the least amount of force is always used. A small rocket, we're frequently told, is no big deal.

What are you trying to achieve?

The bottom line here is that, if Israel plays ball and Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel, then Israel has the following choices: (1) It can do to Hamas what it did to the PLO in Beirut in '82 and risk taking that large a number of innocent lives; (2) It can ignore the attacks and allow itself to be kicked in the shins by a shrieking infant of a "political organization"; or (3) It can respond proportionately.

What Israel can't do is a repeat of what it just recently did, i.e., bomb Gaza for a month and send in ground troops and not finish the job. Nor can its response to so disproportionate that so many innocent people die. But when dealing with an enemy like Hamas, which doesn't play by fair rules to begin with, Israel should do what it has to do and maintain its integrity to some extent.

Sorry if firing back weapons of equal caliber upsets people. Apparently some people can't be pleased at all.

Originally posted to aemathisphd on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:31 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Give me tips... (5+ / 0-)

    ... on other ways that Israel can respond proportionately and effectively.

    •  I have said this in comments here for a while (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pritchdc, anaxiamander

      So many people keep saying (not necessarily incorrectly) that the Israeli response in Gaza was "disproportionate".  I say to them, if that is what truly bothers you about this, then imagine a scenario where Israel did the exactly proportionate thing - for every missile lobbed indiscriminately at Israel, Israel lobbs one right back.

      I don't know how much it would strategically accomplish if Israel adopted this policy, but it sure would be a public relations coup.

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:42:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you want a tip (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boran2, Tonedevil

      I would say that "Bombing Vindicated" in your title should be in quotes.

      "We had a decisive win... and so I don't think there is any question we have a mandate to move the country in a new direction." Barack Obama

      by pollbuster on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:45:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about diplomacy and reason? (7+ / 0-)

      This idea sounds like a perfect way to perpetuate the dispute forever.  Each side could highlight the damage and deaths on each side, no one could ever move beyond the present stalemate.  What does that accomplish?  Seriously.

      Israel must understand that to keep a group of people walled up and land-locked inside any geographic area, however large or small, is eerily similar to the sequestering of Jews inside of ghettos in Europe.  I've got to tell you, that is a hard approach to defend or ignore.  It seems like a violation of basic human rights.

      Or, are you suggesting the Palestinians as a group should be collectively punished for the actions of the most radical elements within their society?  Again, that is a hard one to defend, wouldn't you say?

      One thing that stands in the way of making sense of such issues is the peculiar free pass we seem to give to military violence, as long as it is done by those with uniforms and modern weaponry.  Somehow, I'm not sure why, that is seen as less reprehensible than violence by those without uniforms or proper equipment.  I wish someone could explain why the one is sort of to be expected, the other is an outrage.  One might innocently imagine that the number of dead and the scale of destruction in each case would be accounted similarly, but that is not so.  War is what you do when all other avenues of diplomacy fail.  It is not a solution, it is an admission of defeat, that costs both sides of the conflict dearly.  We can do better.

    •  Take Hamas out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pritchdc

      Take Hamas out. Hamas is a theofascist organisation built around the single aim of preparing and waging total and eternal war against Israel. They can never be a partner for peace. In the interest of every man, woman and child in Palestine, take them out.

      Enlightenment and Responsibility ... P.S.: In the Palestine conflict debate, "Justice" is nothing but a code word for "more dead people".

      by anaxiamander on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:43:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree strongly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pritchdc

        I said to my wife in the run-up to the 2006 Palestinian election that if I were Abbas, I would have invited Hamas to a "summit meeting" and gunned them all down.

        I still feel the same way. Some people are simply better off dead. Hamas falls in that category.

  •  These discussions are hard if you believe (10+ / 0-)

    as I do that war is a crime in itself.  The slaughter is never justified.  However, there often seems to be little will to find alternatives as long as your side has a chance of prevailing.  When I did my USMC officer's basic training I realized I was learning to behave against my human values.  I never got over it.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:39:01 AM PST

  •  All I am saying is (8+ / 0-)

    give peace a chance.

    "We had a decisive win... and so I don't think there is any question we have a mandate to move the country in a new direction." Barack Obama

    by pollbuster on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:41:27 AM PST

  •  You can't be serious. (0+ / 0-)

    Is anyone else proposing this theory? OK, it's an academic theory of retaliation, I'll agree as much with that.

  •  This discussion is *so* 2008 n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Al que no le guste el caldo, le dan dos tazas.

    by Rich in PA on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:44:54 AM PST

  •  Or new option (9+ / 0-)

    Try to fix the goddamn problem, so people aren't so pissed off at you they are lobbing rockets at you.

    That way no one has to die.  

    Your argument fails!

    I am the typo queen. Sorry in advance.

    by sadpanda on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:44:59 AM PST

  •  The bombing of German cities WAS justified (0+ / 0-)

    The fact that it upsets the folks at a Neo-Nazi website is hardly an argument against it.

    •  Fire bombing German cities was not the most (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wystler, mattman, capelza, Tonedevil, Johnny Q, ffrf

      effective means of winning in word war II, it caused retrenchment, an acceleration of the final solution against the Jews and redirected military resources that were better used against military targets, be they troops or production facilities that were building German munitions.

      Breaking the back of the public mostly just kills civilians, including a disproportionate number of women and children.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

      by ecostar on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:48:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cool. What were the justifications? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wystler, Tonedevil, Johnny Q

      FYI.

      Dresden has no military industry, no troop concentrations and was of no strategic value.

      •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)

        Don't forget that "the West" learned about Dresden from Vonnegut. He was a POW in Dresden when it was bombed. They were brought to Dresden, in part, to do military-related work for the Wehrmacht. On top of that, while there were no troop transports in Dresden, it was a major point of troop departure and transfer. Strategically, hitting any major city is going to help your war effort. Finally, don't forget that Germany bombed the f*ck out of Bath and Coventry years before the Allies bombed Dresden.

        None of that, IMO, justifies fire bombing a civilian population ever. But you should know the facts.

    •  Sorry, but no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp

      Killing civilians to press their government to end a war is a war crime. That we won the war doesn't make it any less so. We hanged people for bombing Bath and Coventry, you know.

  •  Proportionate responses dont always work so well (4+ / 0-)

    If a very strong individual is hit on the playground, is he perceived as weak if he doesn't punch back?  I don't think so! I think that the attacker is sometimes seen as weak for attacking in the first place, and that a stoic response may gain more for the attacked individual than a proportional response.

    Hamas may be bad but their missile attacks were pretty flimsy in comparison.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:45:38 AM PST

  •  I agree with diarist and Israel should continue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nospinicus

    to defend itself from HAMAS, et al, with all of
    its military might!

  •  In the annals of... (7+ / 0-)

    things we could do other than making peace, I suppose this idea is as good as any.

  •  Somewhat one sided (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    appledown

    When I see the critics of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians pay the same amount of attention to Russia's much worst treatment of the Chechans, I will believe that they are inspired by concern for the oppressed, rather than in bashing Israel.

  •  Another choice for Israel. (6+ / 0-)

    Israel could become a country of equal rights and end the oppression.   Then it will have peace.   To think that this form of oppression will work better that some other form of oppression is absurd.   Oppressed people resist, it is human nature!

    Israel is living in a world of its own making; Israel has the power to change that world.

    •  Its a Jewish country (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, AmbroseBurnside

      and should stay that way.

      There is no where 100% safe in the world for Jews and its nice to know there is one if need be, you know once Hamas and Iran stop teaming up trying to start WW3

    •  A better choice (2+ / 0-)

      Everybody gets their own state.  An Isreal for the Jews (and Druze, and Secular and Christian Arabs) at roughly the 67 borders, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state for the Palestinians.

      How bout that?  Novel idea huh?

      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

      by fizziks on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:15:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, the Christian Arabs are Palestinian. (4+ / 0-)

        Don't ever tell me I'm not a Palestinian!

        Your "novel" idea is offensive.

        Have you ever spoken to Christian Palestinians? Do you even know how they identify themselves?

        I suggest next time think before you spout off at the mouth.

        So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

        by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:40:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wasn't saying that the Christians (0+ / 0-)

          were not Palestinians.  Of course they are.

          I was just giving them the option of living in Israel rather than in a state that has a decent chance of ending up as an Islamic theocracy.

          All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

          by fizziks on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:15:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um seeing as how Hamas aren't clerics (0+ / 0-)

            there is no chance that Palestine will end up as a theocracy.

            Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Palestinian Christians can handle themselves, and they certainly don't need help from Israelis, who've dropped bombs on them just like Palestinian Muslims.

            So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

            by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:31:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  And by the way, (5+ / 0-)

        the secular Arabs are also Palestinian. Palestinian identity is not tied to religion. It's the territory. They're ALL Palestinian.

        So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

        by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:41:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except the Bedouin (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks

          and the Druze. I don't think either identify as Palestinian per se.

          •  The Druze identify with whoever can protect them (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgmcp

            The bedouins are increasingly identifying with Palestinians.

            The point is the commenter was trying to reduce what Palestinian meant down to a religious identity and that's just plain ignorant and reveals how little s/he knows about the subject.

            So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

            by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:50:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am actually very knowlegeable on this subject (0+ / 0-)

              You don't know me so quit pretending like you do, and quit insulting me.  You can kiss my ass.

              Most Palestinians are Muslim, some are Christian, and some are Secular.  In my comment I was merely proposing that those Christian and Secular ones who would find themselves located within the future Palestinian state of a two state solution be given the option of settling in Israel, since the Palestinian state has a decent chance of being hostile to them, ala Hamas.

              All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

              by fizziks on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:20:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Very mature. (0+ / 0-)

                You can kiss my ass.

                Israeli bombs and wars have killed enough Palestinian Christians and "Seculars" that they'd rather go to the West than enter Israel.

                You can be secular and Christian or secular and Muslim. Palestinian identity runs much deeper than just religion. It's tied to the land. The fact that you don't understand that suggests that you don't know much. And so I stand by my comment that your comment was offensive and you should retract it.

                So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

                by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:28:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My original comment was offensive? (0+ / 0-)

                  I think you need to get some thicker skin, whoever you are.  I think your comments are more offensive because you called me a direct name ("ignorant") although unlike you I don't have my panties in a bunch over it.

                  Anyway, I'm sticking with a two state solution, and in my particular incarnation of it, I think it is fair that minorities who have a reasonable fear of being persecuted in the future Palestinian state be given the option of choosing Israel instead.  I include among those minorities Druze, secular Palestinians, Christian Palestinians, and homosexuals.  

                  They can also choose the Palestinian state if they want.  That's my plan.  You don't have to agree with it.  

                  All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                  by fizziks on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:41:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Whoever I am. (2+ / 0-)

                    I'm a Palestinian Christian, I'm also a "homosexual," and secular, and your attempt to separate Palestinians based on religion is offensive, whether you recognize it or not.

                    I don't know who you are to pontificate about what Palestinian minorities should and shouldn't be doing. But I suggest you talk to actual Palestinian Christians. You'd realize in half a second that none of them want anything to do with Israel. Israel has treated Palestinians of all stripes so horribly that it can't be viewed as their savior at all.

                    If worse comes to worst, they'll travel to the West, definitely not Israel. If you don't know that and if you don't understand how offensive it is that you suggest they turn to very country that has occupied their land, then you are ignorant of Palestinian Christians, and that's not a personal attack on you.

                    So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

                    by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:49:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is off-topic and none of my business... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... but I'll ask anyway. Doesn't the idea of a Palestinian country run by Hamas and ruled by shariya scare you as a gay man?

                      •  You know, not as much as Israel's (0+ / 0-)

                        reign of terror in the Occupied Territories does.

                        I've lived in the Middle East. I know what it's like to live under a regime that doesn't like gays. Hamas will be no different.

                        Israel, no matter it's relatively enlightened attitude towards gays, is a hell of a lot scarier to me.

                        And Shari'a is no more scary than Halakha as far as I'm concerned. It can be interpreted in many different ways.

                        And as far as Israel enlightenment goes, if the ever increasing power of the Haredim continues, Hamas's and Israel's  social policies will essentially be indistinguishable.

                        So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

                        by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:02:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

                          And Shari'a is no more scary than Halakha as far as I'm concerned. It can be interpreted in many different ways.

                          Absolutely. But Israel won't be ruled under Halakha anytime soon. Palestine we can't be so sure about w/r/t shariya.

                    •  Wow, giving some people the OPTION (0+ / 0-)

                      of settling in their choice of two different countries makes me the bad guy.

                      All this wasted time learning and acquiring skills... And all along I should have just squinted to see Russia

                      by fizziks on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:01:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, that's not it. (0+ / 0-)

                        What's offensive is that you suggested they go to Israel, the country that has occupied their land.

                        Since you brought up gays, it's like asking a gay person to escape his homophobic family by taking refuge with a Southern Baptist church.

                        So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

                        by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:05:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Meaningful dialogue (0+ / 0-)

                  Israeli bombs and wars have killed enough Palestinian Christians and "Seculars" that they'd rather go to the West than enter Israel.

                  More than Jordanians or Lebanese? This is the kind of thing that makes me nutty: Nobody wants to take responsibility for the lousy treatment of Palestinians by just about every Middle Eastern country. Saddam Hussein's money was only good to Palestinian families if their kid was dead. What does that say? I'm not saying Israel is blameless -- far from it. But how many Palestinian Muslims would want to live in either a Christian or Shia-dominated Lebanon?

                  You can be secular and Christian or secular and Muslim. Palestinian identity runs much deeper than just religion. It's tied to the land.

                  So is Jewish identity, which is something that many people don't understand. Yes, much political hay is made of Jerusalem and the "symbolism of it" and yada, yada, but the key to understanding Israeli intransigence over Jerusalem is understanding what Jerusalem and the entire land indeed means to religious Jews.

                  The fact that you don't understand that suggests that you don't know much. And so I stand by my comment that your comment was offensive and you should retract it.

                  Can't we all just get along?

                  For the record, you're both blockheads.

                  I'm kidding.

                  Or am I?

                  •  Did I suggest that Palestinians flee (0+ / 0-)

                    to Jordan or Egypt to escape Hamas tyranny? No.

                    Did I suggest that if Israelis feel threatened, they should just move to another country? No.

                    The other commenter did. Yet I'm the blockhead for calling him/her out.

                    Whatever.

                    So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

                    by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:34:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And for the record, (0+ / 0-)

                    Palestinians know very well what other Arabs have done to them. This is the second time you've alleged that Palestinians don't recognize this.

                    I learned about Sabra and Shatila from my parents. My aunt and her family were kicked out of Kuwait in 1991. We know about it. So stop saying that we refuse to recognize it.

                    So you think you can love me and leave me to die?

                    by unspeakable on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:07:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Proportionate is relative... (0+ / 0-)

    to whomever is complaining.

    In this case, I fully agree with what you say about having Israel give the Hamas a week with no restrictions on good transportation and respond in accordance with what they do, rocket for rocket.

    I dont know if the response shouldnt be targeted, but whatever, take some of your medicine.

    But in the process the world will have to see that Hamas is bringing this upon themselves and are not to be trusted to have open boarders.

    Apparently the last 8 years didnt prove the world anything bc no one was watching, but maybe now they will????

  •  why does israel continue "to play ball" (0+ / 0-)

    with hamas? why are they not the first to cease fire when the rest of the world is asking for a cease fire? how much cheaper is the military response than just a temporary civilian evacuation of the limited areas affected by the oversized hamas bottle rockets? israel could try playing the grownup for a change.

    "Michele Bachmann is like the demi glace of wingnuttia." - Chris Hayes, Countdown, 2/18/09

    by rasbobbo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:35:59 AM PST

  •  i am happy at the lack of support (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Tonedevil, Terra Mystica
    this craziness is getting here.

    sorry,aem, they'd love you at little green footballs, but you ain't gonna feel the love here.

    Our Problems Stem From Our Acceptance Of This Filthy Rotten System --St. Dorothy Day

    by Tom J on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:47:17 AM PST

  •  110 rockets and mortar shells have exploded in (0+ / 0-)

    Israel since the Israeli air war ended.

    I read many comments as deflections rather than honest rejoinders.

    For example a gay commenter cannot acknowledge Hamas’ rule would be detrimental to his lifestyle....ridiculous.
    And what about Hamas' continued missile offensive?

    Silence.

    Hamas is the problem as well as other factions who cannot survive politically without a continual conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis.  Hamas had plenty of opportunities to show us how the well they could govern, instead we saw failure.

    All those who blame Israel for the failures in that part of the world are fooling  themselves.  

    I'm not saying Israel has not make mistakes, but I don't consider Hamas' movement (?) towards a "peace" settlement as a series of failures nor as mistakes but as their political objectives!

    That's the bottom line.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site