[Faceman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: When you have land mines and snipers SWAT is not enough by itself. ....Best to use IDF-More efective and far more cheaper, then go-enter-go-enter of the SWAT.

Agreed.

Also we have much more IDF troops than SWAT ones.

Don't know about your situation, probably not true here in the USA.

Terrorrists will not meekly say-i am sorry, i surender. Use of force is a neseccity. The mentality of people is different.

Agreed again.

Assassinations-Rantisi was a part of HAMAS. What proof do you need? He was guilty, and had to be executed. The same with Yasin.

Well, to detract for a moment -- wouldn't capturing them and bringing them to trial be better? Of course, there are the logistics of the capture, the amount of lives lost in the capture, and the ensuing political embroglio, because a captured terrorist causes more bombings and hijackings in order to bargain for their release. In short, I wish all first world countries had the BALLS (or chutzpah, if you prefer) to deal with terrorists with such finality. Bringing them to justice can be a bloddy affair in and of itself.[/QUOTE]I agree to some extent, however the flaw in your argument is that you automatically assume that 90% of all Palestinians are terrorists. Of course you need excessive force when attacking a fortification or hideout of some sort. But you just can't raze an entire village just because there are a certain number of criminals (organised and heavily armed criminals, but criminals nonetheless) hiding there.
For the assassination:
Terrorists will terrorize, that's what they do. Now I don't see the point in compromising one's integrity and justice system because you fear that terrorists may start terrorizing.
Again I say use the appropriate force instead of excessive force.

It's also an ideological problem and of course a problem of law (regional and international). Israel is in a constant civil war state and AFAIK there's not one prominent historical example where this has worked out for the ones in power.
Israel and the US tend to respond to the terrorist threat with inappropriate and (strictly called) illegal methods and support this decisions with ideology.
Let's go way back: Some years ago (pre 9/11) Clinton administration got word of a terrorist camp in Sudan. They immediately attacked it with Cruise missiles.
Now Sudan is an independent country and in my book this was an act of war. However since nobody inthe Western world (speak US, Canada, Europe) really cares and they don't have the force (and stupidity) to respond they let it slide.
Back to my mob analogy:
Some regions of Sicily are almost completely under control of the mafia and Italy does little or nothing about it.
Now if there was a "terrorist incident" involving the mob and intelligence could prove that the ones involved have ties to the Sicilian mob would the US start bombing Sicily?
And don't tell me the situation there is different, because it isn't. The mafia rules the island and although there are many innocents living there they don't dare to cross her. I dare to day that it's not a lot different in Gaza. Many Palestinians don't agree with the terrorists but they fear the Hamas.
How would you feel if you were surrounded by criminals (who don't wish you harm, but don't really care about you or if you get killed) and the police (who don't wish you harm, but don't really care about you or if you get killed)
I'd feel pretty shitty.