Haaretz reports that, as Israeli ground forces entered Gaza yesterday, “hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas.” FireDogLake’s Siun writes, “The use of cluster bombs — which have a large footprint when initially dropped and then remain a threat for decades — in a location like the Gaza Strip which is so packed with people is horrifying.” (FDL notes that video footage seems to confirm the use of cluster bombs.) Last summer, a former Israeli defense official said that “the Israeli military used cluster bombs for two weeks during the 2006 Lebanon war without telling the Israeli government.” At the time, the UN decried the use of the bombs as “completely immoral.”

[...]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/04/israel-cluster-bombs/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/04/AR2009010401607.html

Richardson is withdrawing from the Obama cabinet picks.

Funny how a governor is under investigation by a U.S. Attorney who owes his seat to blatantly illegal interference by Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici, and the Attorney, Wilson, and Domenici continue to hold positions of power? 4 Dem governors, 0 Repub governors. What are the odds of this happening without a U.S. Attorneys scandal?

Since I really am just a unsure centrist on this one, I have no idea what you are referring to, nor did I get any of my post from any other sites. The fact that others independent of my cite a similar thought experiment means it may be valid to think about. So let's hear your opinion on it...if you have one besides everything Plestinian is good and everything Israeli is bad.

Since you are clearly one of the radicals on the issue (as there are on both sides) you are illustrating how radicalism rarely leads to reasoned debate. The fact that you read my post and somehow get that I am a talking-point spouting Israel fan shows your own blinkered radicalism.

i agree with you. i fully saw the both-sides-of-the-proverbial-fence angle you went with in your previous post, and also recognized sinnard's penchant for lashing out against israel (not that he doesn't have good reason).

but yeah, i mean i'm the first one to criticize israel for their actions, but for him to get the idea that you were on a bandwagon says a lot about the objectivity of the individual, namely him.

glenn mentioned this earlier. for someone to read something like what you said and automatically choose a side of which to attack back at you from shows how important this issue is.

To continue, if you take the stance that you are not unsure and you are instead quite sure that Israel does NOT have a right to exist and defend itself, that's an honest opinion. Is that your belief?

If that goes too far, then how do you propose Israel act in their current situation?

As far as the 'debunking' of (one of) my thought experiments...there's really no debunking there...they avoid the question (how would we/should we react to Mexican rocket attacks) and fast forward to a ludicrously successful Mexican invasion and occupation to set them up as 'Israel'. The question is a much more realistic one, what if they take the stance of Palestine, and start lobbing rockets, which is NOT ludicrous (at least in terms of ability...I do not believe they would ever do it but they easily COULD). This 'debunking' you cite is not in any way useful to reasoned inquiry.

I am not pro-Israel...but I am not blindly pro-Palestine either. I even wonder if I (we) have a right to be either of those...

That WinSmith windbag at last ran out of hot air and retired for the evening...well. it was way overdue.

here i have to raise an issue.

the mexico/san diego (ugh i can't believe i'm even taking this somewhere) isn't relevant unless you add the caveat which sinnard's article does include. the prison-camp-like conditions of the occupied territory. other than that, it really has zero parallels that could be drawn up with the i/p issue.

and no you're not getting any capital letters.

at least he formed thoughts and pieced them together in coherent paragraphs, despite being ass-backwards about just about all of it.

is that

so much

to ask

klytus?

I'm just rejoining the discourse. Did zenwick ever answer Glenn's question? I don't have time to comb through mounds of comments like the endlessly inane WinSmith's And SJH to patiently dig up zenwick's reply, if indeed reply he ever did.

I think if we just made Gaza a state a lot of the confusion would go away. Two things: Embargo is an act of war; bombing is an act of war. If Gaza were a state, neither acts would stand. As it is one can say that Gaza is a one party state. The ruling party is Hamas. They killed off the other party, Fatah. That makes Gaza a revolutionary state.

Never the less, if Gaza had international recognition, a lot of this might not be possible or the world would have a more rationally lega reaction.

Is what

Too much

To ask?

it's a bit more complex than that. the palestinians want a unified state with jerusalem as their capital. they don't want gaza a state unless they get the west bank, golan heights, and jerusalem (or half of it) with it.

To continue, if you take the stance that you are not unsure and you are instead quite sure that Israel does NOT have a right to exist and defend itself, that's an honest opinion. Is that your belief?

Oh here we go, it's "right to exist" time.

If that goes too far, then how do you propose Israel act in their current situation?

I am not interested in Irsael or the Palesntinians, I am interested in how this is going to affect the United States, which is and will be blamed for all of this, and lead to the death of Americans. But why would anyone bother caring about Americans? Israel obviously doesn't, in fact, it has nothing but contempt for Americans. It tries to pull false flags on us (USS Liberty) it's lobby and influence fatten up our politicians, it infests our media and government with moles that have been caught spying on us. It has illegal nukes. And how do we repay them? With millions of american taxdollars and the threat of morphing any honest politician's face in to Osama Bin Laden on TV. But no no, lets argue talking points and war crimes as civilized people instead.

I honestly don't know how to feel about the Palestine/Israel situation, there are levels upon levels. I think that's why the problems are so intractable and seemingly neverending. Israel is clearly defending herself, but should Israel ever have been created? Palestinians are clearly being victimized, but are they blameless in their choices (leadership by Hamas, rejecting Oslo, etc)? Should the US and US citizens even be involved? Can we even have an opinion of note without 'being there'? There are moral, practical, historical, and geopolitical issues here, and some of them contradict. I believe practically that Israel is a fact, and deserves to remain there...but I also have some issues with the morality of its creation...but I also value Israel as a US ally, as the most 'Western' democracy in the Middle East...but some Israelis have made horrible choices (unending settlement expansion being the main one I think) and others practice self-defense in a pretty ugly manner. So am I 'pro-Israel' or 'pro-Palestine'? I am both and neither. I think a substantial, less strident majority of Americans are where I am, sort of in the middle with an ear for both causes. The center is always more silent than the radicals on either side of an issue.

You seem to have a lot of cognitive dissonance.

This is you:

"Gee guys, I don't know, I could go this way, could go that way, I need to weigh the facts more and learn more about the issue, I can't decide! I just don't know!"

With that sort of wishy-washyness, it is like the propaganda has done its job!

You don't even mention the seize of Gaza, you mention the usual one-sided talking points, "democracy", "self-defense" on one hand, and then on the other you put either Israeli war crimes or other propaganda talking points. You are honestly weighing propaganda talking points against war crimes. The "center" appears to suit you well. Be proud of your ignorance and call it "not taking sides" and being "balanced", like a good centrist.