As always, with you there is only one side to the history. No ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arab countries, no confiscations, no Palestinian collaboration with the Nazis, no pan-Arab warnings to the Muslim inhabitants to vacate in order to clear the battlefield for annihilation of the Jews, no Jewish land purchases from the previous owners....

It's just those dirty no-good Jews have their own country, and you would like to see it eradicated.

Since you've eliminated the ad hominem "LIE" accusations from your latest posts, I'll be glad to comment. In one post you responded to me:

"The Palestinian strategy (ever since there was, politically, such a thing as "Palestine") has been to keep themselves indigent to arouse sympathy, and to keep themselves in the news by committing acts of terrorism." What irrational animals! Keep themselves indigent! How frightful.

And in your next, rather more rational post, you say:

"the Palestinians will always get screwed over.... If nobody will do it for them, they will do it for themselves."

So, which is it? And please give me any example of any interest in economic development on the part of Hamas, or of any Palestinian entity prior to the death of Arafat. You will find there is none.

Why don't you go laugh your FA off where somebody cares what you think?

I guess your question is, "... whether you would favor our government taking a basic legalistic approach to this situation and call for sanctions against both Hamas and Israel and what sanctions do you believe would be both appropriate and effective?"

I believe Israel will find a way to defend herself, whether or not the US (or any other country) grants her foreign aid. I'm not opposed to anyone giving financial aid to the Palestinians for purposes of economic development, either.

Sanctions such as an international policing force, which came up as a suggestion in the news yesterday, always end up being used unilaterally against Israel. Back in the days of UNIFIL in Lebanon, for example, the Fatah fedayeen used to drive right up the the fence of the UN encampments in order to fire Katyushas at Israel. What were the UN people going to do, shoot them? No, they just submitted a report, which was filed. If the Israelis were to shoot back, there would have been hell to pay.

The only good solution, it seems to me, is the one Sharon started: the separation barrier. The Palestinian strategy (ever since there was, politically, such a thing as "Palestine") has been to keep themselves indigent to arouse sympathy, and to keep themselves in the news by committing acts of terrorism. The barrier has mostly stopped the latter, except for situations like this; bringing you folks out of the woodwork to denounce Israel for self-defense. That's why I don't think it was a good idea to do it. It's playing on Hamas' turf.

What's really needed is a passive solution to the rockets - that is, a reliable and relatively cheap anti-missile system that can be deployed on the Israeli side of the border. Once that is put in place, Gaza can stew in its own juices, until they eventually find a vocation other than terrorism. Maybe with all their significant experience in rocketry, they can start their own space program.

I would take the trouble to argue with you, but (as many here) you are simply a scoundrel who indulges ad hominem, so I won't bother. I hope you will think better of yourself one day.

It's an arguable point. According to Wikipedia:

"Because the Palestinian Authority in Gaza does not believe it has sufficient control of the area at this time, foreign observers such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and various legal experts have argued that the disengagement will not end Israel's legal responsibility as an occupying power in Gaza."

I don't believe the Geneva Conventions ever contemplated a situation where the previously occupied population continued to actively dedicate itself to the neighboring country's destruction, using primarily terrorist means.

Having said that, I generally agree with you, in that Israel might be better served in the long run by being less restrictive. However, I don't believe that what they are doing is illegal.

Once again, I am pleasantly surprised to find someone interested in conversation rather than attack.

You'll need to educate me: in what way is Israel in violation of international law by controlling its borders with Gaza? Every nation in the world controls its borders. The border with Gaza has been a main avenue for terror attacks against Israeli civilians for more than twenty years, so it stands to reason they will be restricted. It surprises me that the borders are open at all.

The bottom line is that Israel has always wanted peace with its neighbors, but that peace has never been available. The Palestinians could have had their state for the asking, at any time since 1967, by agreeing to live in peace and by foregoing the destruction of Israel. That has never been on the table until now, and is still not on the table where Gaza is concerned.

... and just when I thought all the anti-semites had gone to bed.

Great screen name, BTW. I like the irony.

'Learn to behave like a human being, and then perhaps your opinions will deserve respect.-- zenwick

Didn't you say that earlier today?'

Yes, I said it to omooex earlier today. People who think they are smart, but are too self-possessed to listen to the other side, but instead mock them, are fools, and are not worthy of respect. I'm trying to help educate them, but I understand it's a long shot.

By the way, I never said I'm in favor of the current Israeli action. In fact, I am not. I was just trying to have a civilized discussion of the issues, in the midst of what basically seems to have been a little antisemitic kaffee-klatsch.