<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Factoid:

Since January 1, 2001 in Isreal, there have been @1,600 terrorist attacks. @550 have involved the use of bombs. @50 were car bombs.

Interesting point:

At the last Camp David accord (during the Clinton Administration) between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, Isreal agreed to 92% of what the Palestinians requested and Yassar Arafat said, "no".

I have no doubts that the 8% of land requested was probably the most controversial, but it was the best offer the Palestinians have ever gotten, they refused it completely, and no offers have come close since.<hr></blockquote>

You bet your booties it was controversial - the main sticking point was Jerusalem, of course. To be fair to Arafat - the whole of the Arab world was dead against concessions being made on Jerusalem, as it is their holy city, as well as the holy city of the Jews. Had Arafat given way on Jerusalem... well, basically it couldn't have happened. Both he and Barak entered into negotiations determined not to give way on this crucial point, as neither Arabs or Jews would have accepted a compromise, and both leaders were afraid of failing their people (and being assasinated, of course... )

While I can't really disagree with anything that's been said, on the violence factor I will point out that Isreal's use of non-lethal attacks, tear gas and rubber bullets, is a tact never used by Hamas. Hamas is dedicated to death.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
While I can't really disagree with anything that's been said, on the violence factor I will point out that Isreal's use of non-lethal attacks, tear gas and rubber bullets, is a tact never used by Hamas. Hamas is dedicated to death.<hr></blockquote>

Israel's attacks have been pretty lethal, as far as I know. Are we talking about the same Israel, here?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Israel's attacks have been pretty lethal, as far as I know. Are we talking about the same Israel, here?<hr></blockquote>


Don't get me wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm not implying Israel's responses are always, or even usually, non-lethal, but there are times when they use non-lethal measures, hence my examples.

I've never heard of a Hamas suicide bomber using a non-lethal bomb, or any other form of non-lethal violence. Hamas wants the ouster of every Israeli or their death, and either will do.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



Don't get me wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm not implying Isreal's responses are always, or even usually, non-lethal, but there are times when they use non-lethal measures, hence my examples. I've never heard of a Hamas suicide bomber using a non-lethal bomb, or any other form of non-lethal violence. Hamas wants the ouster of every Israeli or their death, and either will do.<hr></blockquote>

Well, you're comparing a government with a terrorist group. A government which persists in taking illegal action in the Lebanon, West Bank and Gaza, to boot.

One would hope there would be some differences. Pity there aren't more....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Well, you're comparing a government with a terrorist group. One would hope there would be some differences. Pity there aren't more....<hr></blockquote>

The problem is that Israel, as a government, has to respond to the terrorist actions. The terrorists use the means at their disposal and so do the Israeli's. In a weird way, Hamas would seem more legitimate if they used their attacks against "legitimate" targets. The terrorists purposely kill innocents, and it's hard for a government to respond, in defense of their civilian population, in a non-violent way. It's also hard for the world to understand the reasoning behind such actions against innocents.

The religious based attacks have gone on for so many centuries in the Middle East that it's hard to figure out who's the chicken and who's the egg. The rational look at this, is that both are being stupid and acting counter productively. Both need to stop right now.

SC you are the quickest draw on IW!

You always respond before I can finish editing...lol. :D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
SC you are the quickest draw on IW!

You always respond before I can finish editing...lol. :D <hr></blockquote>


I do realise I get a break because of the difference in time zones though. It's nearly 0130 for you now :D

Ronn_Bman has hit the nail on the head with his points regarding religion.
Religion is the most divisive factor on earth, has caused more deaths and more hatreds and immovable stances than anything else EVER. They are all so damn sure they are right and that god is on their side and that people on the other side deserve to die because they don't worship god the way they do - which justifies anything they may do, no matter how horrific. Hardliners on both sides of the Palestine/Israeli divide have that attitude.

I appreciate that the above comment is highly controversial, but history bears me out, imo.

Well, I've been away from this forum for a couple days doing other things. I think that it's time to add my 2 GP.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

In a weird way, Hamas would seem more legitimate if they used their attacks against "legitimate" targets. The terrorists purposely kill innocents, and it's hard for a government to respond, in defense of their civilian population, in a non-violent way. It's also hard for the world to understand the reasoning behind such actions against innocents.
<hr></blockquote>

I strongly believe that there is a clear difference between LEGITIMATE "freedom fighters" and "terrorists". Ronn, were Hamas to only attack "legitimate" targets (by which I assume that you mean government and military targets), Hamas would no longer BE a terrorist group. They would be guerillas or freedom fighters. Attacking innocents makes them illegitimate.