Israeli Army Kills 8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Quote:

Deir Yassin, was a village that never resisted, it had in fact had a pact of peace with its neighbours. It was also in the arab partition. It was very deliberately wiped out.

*cough*

Even palestinian researches of the Beir Zeit (iirc) university, reported that there were several bodies of "fighters" among the dead. They were infact, iirc, Iraqi commandos.


The war of 48 started in 47 when the arab states began sending rogue agents to organize the local community in designated israeli land for an upcoming war.

I have heard differing opinions on this. In general most researchers wouldn't have been suprised if there were a small number of fighters within the camp at the time but few are willing to say that they were a significant element or that Deir Yassin was a base or in any way strategic. In fact, any "fighters" were probably villagers actively defending themselves as I believe they had a right to do. The village itself was NOT active in Arab resistance and its inhabitants had a pact with their Jewish neighbours. There was no valid excuse for what transpired. Some would argue that it was used as incentive to scare the arabs into fleeing and while I can believe this I certainly don't have facts to back it up. What I can say is there is not enough fact to clear Israel of the charge of deliberately targeting civilians.

This is the point, Israeli spin doctors and high commanders continually point out that the IDF is not in the practice of targeting civilians but they do not speak for the individual actors, the rogue elements, the hard-line commanders who exist within the IDF and the settler community who would target civilians, and the fact that these people exist is demonstrated by the high levels of "collateral damage." We can all agree that when dealing with gorilla warfare high levels of civilian casualties are seen by many people as an effective means of quelling the populace, this view is undoubtedly shared by many on this board, many in the IDF, and not to mention Sharon.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Felch X
There are consequences for initiating the use of force, and one of those is that you get no sympathy when you lose. The Arabs initiated the use of force against Israel, according to every source that I've found. The first of these is generally pro-Palestinian, the second is pro-Israel, the third is a Christian pro-Zionist source, and the last is the BBC.

http://www.zmag.org/shalom-meqa.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/independence.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...eline/1948.stm

How did the arabs start the conflict? Refusing the partition plan? One wonders why they were given the choice to support or not if in not supporting they would be condemned forever, oops, they weren't given the choice were they? It was made by the UN which at the time had very little in the way of arabic representation. If it is your belief that the arabs were responsible because in your view it started in 47 I would argue that the British and the international community were responsible because knowing full well the issue wasn't resolved they were willing to wash their hands of the situation and walk quickly away.

However, if you believe it started long before that I would again argue the British were responsible because as is said on one of your sites...

"During World War I, Britain made three different promises regarding historic Palestine. Arab leaders were assured that the land would become independent; in the Balfour declaration, Britain indicated its support for a Jewish national home in Palestine; and secretly Britain arranged with its allies to divide up Ottoman territory, with Palestine becoming part of the British empire. Historians have engaged in detailed exegesis of the relevant texts and maps, but the fundamental point is that Britain had no moral right to assign Palestine to anyone: by right Palestine belonged to its inhabitants."

[Ned]

CyberGnu, In response to Felch's observation that the French resistance did not tartget German civilians, you said:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
They sure did. Policestations, railroads, administratinal buildings, even german field bordellos were targets. All of them populated by german civilians. Bombings of bars popular among the germans also occured.

However, targeting civilians was even then, as it is today, a violation of international law. So even if those resistance fighters who committed these atrocities are today feted as heroes, they are as guilty of war crimes as any Nazi death camp butcher.

Citation to Allied war criminals is as basis for your claim that Palestinians who commit similar acts are acting within international law is unavailing.

[Sirotnikov]

I have heard differing opinions on this. In general most researchers wouldn't have been suprised if there were a small number of fighters within the camp at the time but few are willing to say that they were a significant element or that Deir Yassin was a base or in any way strategic.

Dier Yassin wasn't an active base of operations, but it was overseeing the only available access way to Jerusalem at the time, and thus was a strategic target for the Israelis, who wanted to remain in control.

In fact, any "fighters" were probably villagers actively defending themselves as I believe they had a right to do.

I agree that some were, but according to Israeli sources, there were several arab commandos there.

The village itself was NOT active in Arab resistance and its inhabitants had a pact with their Jewish neighbours. There was no valid excuse for what transpired.

There was a valid reason for wanting to cease control of that village and deport it (it being a strategic position overlooking the road to Jerusalem).

I agree that the killing of innocent people that occured following the battle is inexcusable, even though I can see some logic in how it occured.

Some would argue that it was used as incentive to scare the arabs into fleeing and while I can believe this I certainly don't have facts to back it up. What I can say is there is not enough fact to clear Israel of the charge of deliberately targeting civilians.

According to the evidence of people participating, the killing resulted in an amok rage, when several female civilians turned out to be disguised fighters, which began shooting at the Israeli fighters. In the confusion and rage that ensued, the Israelis opened fire on every civilian in sight.

Inexcusable - yes. Can I understand it? I can. That doesn't mean I think it was the right choise.

This is the point, Israeli spin doctors and high commanders continually point out that the IDF is not in the practice of targeting civilians but they do not speak for the individual actors, the rogue elements, the hard-line commanders who exist within the IDF and the settler community who would target civilians, and the fact that these people exist is demonstrated by the high levels of "collateral damage."

Agreed.

I don't think however, that you can or should blame the entire IDF on the basis of sub-groups.

It's only reasonable that people who ask to go to combat units, are often ... less well balanced and more trigger happy then thier peers.

Plus, try to imagine a 19 year old, with 6-9 months training, facing a situation where he usually can't tell a civilian and a disguised terrorist appart, having a serious sleep deficit.

That's one of the reasons Israel decided, when occupying the Palestinian towns completely, to rely more on older soldiers, whether those who stay in the army, or those called up. Everyone agrees they are more tolerant, being older, wiser, and having families of their own.

I have to tell you though, that the IDF is trying to reduce such cases by increasing the time of courses in tolerance and combat honor, and by increasing penalties and investigations.

We can all agree that when dealing with gorilla warfare high levels of civilian casualties are seen by many people as an effective means of quelling the populace, this view is undoubtedly shared by many on this board, many in the IDF, and not to mention Sharon.

While I would perhaps let it slip with Sharon, I think the IDF is well aware that such actions are bad, both for IDF's image and for the future. IDF does know that it's actions effect future generations.

There are also many brighter sides to the IDF which are rarely covered, by Israeli media, and even less by world media.

In civilian areas, soldiers often did try to help the populace. Obviously it's not THAT nice. I mean, here I come to enforce cerfew and I'm "nice enough" to give you some food. But it is a sign of some good will.

Btw, Gmoose, you're a much nicer person to talk to than I first thought (I don't recall where my first impression stemmed from).

You actually hold logical and well thought and founded views, and you're civil about it.

You're like the pro-palestinian Ned.

However, if you believe it started long before that I would again argue the British were responsible because as is said on one of your sites...

I agree with you on that point.

I think that the brittish did alot, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, to flare up the conflict.

Whether they intended to or not, their reign seriously f*cked up the region, and it's their responsibility.

They sure did. Policestations, railroads, administratinal buildings, even german field bordellos were targets. All of them populated by german civilians. Bombings of bars popular among the germans also occured.

Policestations, railroads, administrational buildings are all buildings representative of the nation's sovereignity. I see them as acceptable targets in total war.

However, bars are completely off limits.

I'm not sure what to say about the field bordellos. I think they are as good as baracks.

[Sirotnikov]

Vesayen, I doubt the 8 year old was a serious threat.

With regards to him, while there is a cause - a mistake, and a reason for the mistake - battle, terror etc, his death is not justifiable in any way. His killing was simply a sad mistake.

And even if the soldier who killed him intended to do so, it was a mistake from israel's part, and it's a crime from the soldier's part.

[JoeDaddy715]

killing that boy probably stopped a terrorist attack ten years from now...
the bottom line, whether you want to believe it or not is that the muslim religion is based on extremism. no other religion is based on the idea of banding together to fight other religions. israel is just defending itself.
the REAL murderers here are the boy's parents for allowing him to go into the streets to attack soldiers who are just trying to stay alive and do their jobs.

[JoeDaddy715]

sorry, but the people who danced in the streets on 9/11/01 when they heard the news deserve whatever happens to them.
besides, everybody, including the palestenians, knows that israel could, if they so chose, do a lot more damage than they do. it's a great testimony to the mercy of sharon and the IDF that there are not more incidents like this. I am certain that if arafat were in charge, there would be outright genocide. Just look at the laws of the other muslim nations of the world. If you say that mohammed was not a prophet or even the last prophet, your sentence is death. Who are the barbarians here? Every muslim in the world. Don't believe the muslims that say that bin laden does not speak for all muslims. It is their way to offer an olive branch followed by a sword.... just another tactic to confuse their enemies (us.) do you really think that those people who cheered and danced at the deaths of thousands of american civillians wouldn't kill children? are you joking or just trying to confuse?

[Ned]

JoeDaddy, There is another thread here called "Peaceful Islam?" I suggest you review it, particularly the posts by GePap.

In the thread, we agreed that both the Koran and the Bible contain passages enjoining the faithful to attack the unbeliever (the Bible in the OT). We also agreed that religions evolved and that over time Islam did become peaceful and Chistianity went through a violent stretch with the Crusades, etc. In other words, neither religion is inherently violent or peaceful. But they, particularly Islam, can and have been used politically to advance mixed political/religious objectives. Whether Islam in a location is violent defends on local factors. For this reason, we simply cannot say that Islam everywhere is a problem for the West.

Obvioulsly, the situation in Palestine is an example where Islam is being used politically. Stricly from Islam's point of view, the Koran command one to slay the unbeliever when he attacks you. It makes no distinction whatsoever between soldiers and civilians. That distinction disregards the basis for Jihad - the unbelief of the attacker.

Thus the suicide bombings where civilians are targeted and the rejoicing when the Twin Towers fell.

[Ned]

Siro, In Vietnam, we had more than just enenmy soldiers dressed as women, we had women and children as combatants. Our soldiers were on edge constantly. We never knew who was friend or foe.

As a result, we killed a lot of civilians in Vietnam because firefights would begin and we would shoot back indiscriminately. Senator Kerrey's ordeal is an example where he and his squad wiped out an entire village.

So who is at fault under these circumstances? International law would say that the side would mixes soldiers with civilians is at fault. The law recognises the inevitable result of such mixing and condems those who do it.

This said, I still think there has to be a better way to impose curfews on civilians. Why is it necessary to have troops and armor with live ammo shoot into? crowds of children even if they are throwing rocks. I note that other countries have troops dressed in armor lock shields and advance on the milling rioters. Has Israel ever though of this?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Dier Yassin wasn't an active base of operations, but it was overseeing the only available access way to Jerusalem at the time, and thus was a strategic target for the Israelis, who wanted to remain in control.

I agree that the killing of innocent people that occured following the battle is inexcusable, even though I can see some logic in how it occured. There was a valid reason for wanting to cease control of that village and deport it (it being a strategic position overlooking the road to Jerusalem).

This is refuted by a number of sources I've read. I've seen it argued that Dier Yassin had no strategic importance and I'm sure thats arguable but it was by no means a position of vital importance and it certainly wasn't the only available access to Jerusalem. The Haganah had held off for a little while before ok-ing the attack which would suggest it wasn't imperative while fighting in and around Jerusalem was continuing. At the time there was a worry that an attack on a village in a truce with neighbouring Jewish communities would provoke aggression against those communities. The number of fighter casualties I've seen in pro-Israeli sources is 14 dead, while it can be agreed by most sources that at least over 100 hundred villagers had been killed. I cannot see the logic in these events unless the Irgun and Lehi members who carried out the killings are put in the same category as todays terrorists.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov Inexcusable - yes. Can I understand it? I can. That doesn't mean I think it was the right choise.

This happens to be my exact response to terrorism and people always scoff at me. How do you pull it off?

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I don't think however, that you can or should blame the entire IDF on the basis of sub-groups.

It's only reasonable that people who ask to go to combat units, are often ... less well balanced and more trigger happy then thier peers.

Plus, try to imagine a 19 year old, with 6-9 months training, facing a situation where he usually can't tell a civilian and a disguised terrorist appart, having a serious sleep deficit.

That's one of the reasons Israel decided, when occupying the Palestinian towns completely, to rely more on older soldiers, whether those who stay in the army, or those called up. Everyone agrees they are more tolerant, being older, wiser, and having families of their own.

I have to tell you though, that the IDF is trying to reduce such cases by increasing the time of courses in tolerance and combat honor, and by increasing penalties and investigations.

I would agree with everything here. While I am distrustful of armies in general I admit that the IDF has more then its share of personnel who respect life and human rights even where arabs are concerned and I wouldn't say it is worse then the US army or any army put into the situation it is in. No army has had a good track record occupying territory where the general populace is unhappy with them. My purpose was to point out that viewing the IDF or any organization as having one purpose or system of ethics is incorrect.

The IDF tries to respect life and human rights, some members might see this as their duty as human beings, some might see it as a more cynical attempt to appear as having the moral highground. Others in the IDF might see the killing of an innocent arab as nothing new and might do it intentionally if they could see it as having a desired effect(ie, dispersing a demonstration), while some, most I hope, would be disgusted by this viewpoint.

This is simply my reaction to those who say there is no comparison between an organization who actively targets civilians and one where casualties are a regrettable side effect of actions on military targets.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Quote:

We can all agree that when dealing with gorilla warfare high levels of civilian casualties are seen by many people as an effective means of quelling the populace, this view is undoubtedly shared by many on this board, many in the IDF, and not to mention Sharon.

While I would perhaps let it slip with Sharon, I think the IDF is well aware that such actions are bad, both for IDF's image and for the future. IDF does know that it's actions effect future generations.

Again, I only meant to say that many in the IDF held this view. For instance, Sharon has spent his life in that organization, much of it as a high commander.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Btw, Gmoose, you're a much nicer person to talk to than I first thought (I don't recall where my first impression stemmed from).

You actually hold logical and well thought and founded views, and you're civil about it.

You're like the pro-palestinian Ned.

Thanks for this same here honestly. I'm new to forums in general and I might have refined my style since I started, my ideas might have changed a little too. I consider this my testing ground since I certainly don't get in enough of these discussions in real life I would be too scared of offending people . I like to think I'm neutral even though thats impossible in these discussions but I would be offended if anyone called me anti-Israeli because its simply not true.

[Eli]

This said, I still think there has to be a better way to impose curfews on civilians. Why is it necessary to have troops and armor with live ammo shoot into? crowds of children even if they are throwing rocks. I note that other countries have troops dressed in armor lock shields and advance on the milling rioters. Has Israel ever though of this?

You cant know whether a demonstration is only a rock throwing one, or with hiding gunmen, children with bombs, suicide bombers, etc.

[Sirotnikov]

Siro, In Vietnam, we had more than just enenmy soldiers dressed as women, we had women and children as combatants.
....
So who is at fault under these circumstances? International law would say that the side would mixes soldiers with civilians is at fault. The law recognises the inevitable result of such mixing and condems those who do it.

that's good.

helps to know

This said, I still think there has to be a better way to impose curfews on civilians. Why is it necessary to have troops and armor with live ammo shoot into? crowds of children even if they are throwing rocks. I note that other countries have troops dressed in armor lock shields and advance on the milling rioters. Has Israel ever though of this?

it doesn't help much against molotovs, grenades, and guns.

BBC admitted that at many "demonstrations" there are armed people in masks, who threatened them not to get them on film.

[Jaguar]

What can be done when children are mixed with soldiers?

[Sirotnikov]

This is refuted by a number of sources I've read. I've seen it argued that Dier Yassin had no strategic importance and I'm sure thats arguable but it was by no means a position of vital importance and it certainly wasn't the only available access to Jerusalem.

Well, it all depends on the military plans. From what I read, it was on a hilltop observing an Isolated road to Jerusalem. This road needed to be secured.

The Haganah had held off for a little while before ok-ing the attack which would suggest it wasn't imperative while fighting in and around Jerusalem was continuing. At the time there was a worry that an attack on a village in a truce with neighbouring Jewish communities would provoke aggression against those communities.

Which IMO further proves that the Hanganah wouldn't have approved a massacare. Thus, it was IMO, as I said, unplanned.

The number of fighter casualties I've seen in pro-Israeli sources is 14 dead, while it can be agreed by most sources that at least over 100 hundred villagers had been killed.

That is wierd.

Perhaps they are reffering to the number of dead Jewish fighters.

I also read several Jewish sources and they all stated 100+ dead.

Infact, an autobiography of one of the fighters that day, states a number higher than the one claimed by Palestinian sources.

I cannot see the logic in these events unless the Irgun and Lehi members who carried out the killings are put in the same category as todays terrorists.

I disagree.

According to the autobiography of the Irgun (or was it lehi) fighter, they had a short firefight in which several jews were injured (and some 4 died, I think).

Then they gathered the village into the main square, at which point one of the 'women' took out a gun and began shooting at Jewish fighters. So did some other 'women' IIRC.

The Jewish fighters felt panic and anger and began shooting undescriminantly at the crowd, and didn't stop for a long while.

This happens to be my exact response to terrorism and people always scoff at me. How do you pull it off?

But there is a huge difference.

Dier Yassin - troops surprised by combatant in civilian clothes. run amok. Massacare which was comitted in a state of amok and confusion.

Suicide bomber - a person who mentally and physically prepares to take innocent lives, and plans to do so for a long while.

I would agree with everything here. While I am distrustful of armies in general I admit that the IDF has more then its share of personnel who respect life and human rights even where arabs are concerned and I wouldn't say it is worse then the US army or any army put into the situation it is in. No army has had a good track record occupying territory where the general populace is unhappy with them. My purpose was to point out that viewing the IDF or any organization as having one purpose or system of ethics is incorrect.

Well, I think that the IDF as an army has one system of ethics. That doesn't mean that every soldier abides by it. It's a problem civil society shares. Some people steal, kill and harass. Those people serve in the army too.

But the rules are among the most considerate of enemies and civilian populations.

The IDF tries to respect life and human rights, some members might see this as their duty as human beings, some might see it as a more cynical attempt to appear as having the moral highground. Others in the IDF might see the killing of an innocent arab as nothing new and might do it intentionally if they could see it as having a desired effect(ie, dispersing a demonstration), while some, most I hope, would be disgusted by this viewpoint.

Agreed.

This is simply my reaction to those who say there is no comparison between an organization who actively targets civilians and one where casualties are a regrettable side effect of actions on military targets.

I still can't see a comparison.

Just because there are bad soldiers who abuse their authority, doesn't mean the IDF is comparable to Hamas.

Similarly, if there are some Hamas terrorists, who would take pitty at the life of civilians, that doesn't mean Hamas is a moral organization.

Thanks for this same here honestly. I'm new to forums in general and I might have refined my style since I started, my ideas might have changed a little too. I consider this my testing ground since I certainly don't get in enough of these discussions in real life I would be too scared of offending people . I like to think I'm neutral even though thats impossible in these discussions but I would be offended if anyone called me anti-Israeli because its simply not true.

First of all - welcome aboard. Wear your insult proof jacket. Prepare your google and books to find sources. Prepare your mind for the most stupid claims, arugements and opinions. Prepare your nerves for a test.

Well, some of your opinions are in the eyes of an Israeli - anti-Israeli.

But that's ok. You're fully entitled too.

Btw, take me lightly if I ever get mad or wierd. I've been arguing here for 2 and a half years, and some people's attitudes makes me jump out of my skin. The time takes it's toll and I tend to be more willing to jump on people, which is why I began taking long breakes from this place.

If I sometimes get mad (which I try not to) or insulting, it's usually at people who I feel are insulting me, or that I sincerely suspect of biggotry and anti-semitism.

Several incidents occur to me. One in which a person would ignore everything I said, except phrases he could twist and quote out of context.

Second (and third, and fourth), in which a smug, bigotted and patronizing libertarian annoyed the hell out of me.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
According to the autobiography of the Irgun (or was it lehi) fighter, they had a short firefight in which several jews were injured (and some 4 died, I think).

Is that all? The Warsaw ghetto killed more soldiers than that IIRC.

[Sirotnikov]

The Warsaw ghetto killed more soldiers than that IIRC.

I don't exactly remember. It could be more. Could be less. Some 40 were injured, I recall that for sure.

If you're comparing it to Warsaw ghetto, are you suggesting that the Deir Yassin villagers were also armed?

[gsmoove23]

a

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Which IMO further proves that the Hanganah wouldn't have approved a massacare. Thus, it was IMO, as I said, unplanned.

I don't think the Haganah approved any massacres, I think they were very careful about that. Thats what Irgun and Lehi were for. These were very nasty groups and its not only the 'anti-Israel' side that thinks so. Haganah gave their approval to operations by these groups as long as they had a somewhat believable military objective.

Perhaps they are reffering to the number of dead Jewish fighters.

No, here is one very good website, http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m20...49/print.jhtml

Infact, an autobiography of one of the fighters that day, states a number higher than the one claimed by Palestinian sources.

Its interesting, the highest numbers I've seen were the initial Irgun or Lehi reports which were 200+.

According to the autobiography of the Irgun (or was it lehi) fighter, they had a short firefight in which several jews were injured (and some 4 died, I think).

Then they gathered the village into the main square, at which point one of the 'women' took out a gun and began shooting at Jewish fighters. So did some other 'women' IIRC.

The Jewish fighters felt panic and anger and began shooting undescriminantly at the crowd, and didn't stop for a long while.

But there is a huge difference.

Dier Yassin - troops surprised by combatant in civilian clothes. run amok. Massacare which was comitted in a state of amok and confusion.

Suicide bomber - a person who mentally and physically prepares to take innocent lives, and plans to do so for a long while.

C'mon Siro, you're going to the Irgun's autopbiography? Why not just read the official Israeli government history of the event. That might be just slightly less skewed, but I agree that happened it just does not explain the size of the massacre. If you read the website I posted you'll find there are a number of references to conversations before the operation discussing the possibility of making a statement through mass killing. Also, the killing continued during and for a long time after the fighting. Combatants had enough time to cool down but the killing continued.

"The guerrillas' internal planning discussions stymied on the issue of Deir Yassin's inhabitants. A Lehi proposal suggested "liquidating" them "to show the Arabs what happens when the IZL [Irgun] and the Lehi set out together."(16) "The majority," Irgun officer Ben-Zion Cohen recorded, "was for liquidation of all the men in the village and any other force that opposed us, whether it be old people, women, or children."(17) The recent Gush Etzion and Atarot take-no-prisoners actions by Arabs and subsequent mutilation of Jewish bodies were on their minds. Irgun command in Tel-Aviv (headed by Menachem Begin, later prime minister of Israel) is said to have directed that fighters avoid inflicting unnecessary casualties and warn the villagers by loudspeaker to surrender or take flight.(18)"

taken from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m20...49/print.jhtml

You seem to be a sensible enough guy but this explaining away of a ridiculously horrible event to combat rage is well... horrible. Lehi and Irgun were extremist groups with ultra-nationalist goals to claim the whole of ancient Israel and to sweep the Arabs and Islam out of the land. Racist ideas were part of their ideology. Massacre may not have been their goal at Deir Yassin but they didn't need to be pushed very far to carry it out.

It can be explained because it was taking place in an atmosphere of violence on both sides where each side believed its people were in danger. A massacre could be seen as a retaliation for previous arab massacres and so the retaliatory massacre of a busload of Israelis soon after was seen as retaliation as well. This goes on all the way up to the present day where arab terrorist groups are supposedly retaliating IDF aggression in a 30+ year occupation with limited resources and such an unbalanced military situation that they couldn't possibly consider effectively targeting military targets. Its all equally horrible.

Well, I think that the IDF as an army has one system of ethics. That doesn't mean that every soldier abides by it. It's a problem civil society shares. Some people steal, kill and harass. Those people serve in the army too. But the rules are among the most considerate of enemies and civilian populations.

You're absolutely right. The most grevious error Israel has made is in allowing the occupation to continue for 30+ years. For arming its citizenry with top of the line weaponry and placing them slap dab in the middle of masses of people that are not happy about Israeli occupation. Then to make things worse they attempted to 'change facts on the ground' by placing settlements within the territories. No matter what humanitarian rules the IDF has it is not possible for any armed force to come out of this situation smelling of roses.

I still can't see a comparison. Just because there are bad soldiers who abuse their authority, doesn't mean the IDF is comparable to Hamas.

You can understand combat rage in the heat of a moment but you cannot understand rage that has been cultivated for a lifetime, by the disproportionate death of innocents, stealing of land, poverty and the utter hopelessness of the situation. (arab viewpoint, no need to argue this is what palestinians see)

Well, some of your opinions are in the eyes of an Israeli - anti-Israeli.

... as I'm sure some of my viewpoints on America might be considered anti-American. In playing around with theories of what would be a just resolution I do take seriously the Israeli viewpoint. Doesn't matter though, no one will ever listen to me. Perhaps anti-zionist would be a more correct term.