im surprised there have not been posts about the Hamas, Israel conflict.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by blondboinsd

NOT to mention he won't even spend money on health insurance for his employees

You keep bringing this up. I'm not too cheap to spend the money. The money does not exist. Do you tell homeless people they are too cheap to buy a house? If my company does better in the future and I can afford to provide health care, then I will. But for now I would have to close the doors on my company and go out of business if that was a requirement.

If you don't want me to post here anymore, then just tell me to get lost. But making fun of me because I don't have as much money as you is uncalled for.

[JCL]

Eric:

I am glad you posted in this thread. It caused me to go look up a few things that you and B-Line posted, to learn more.

At this point, I think you are ahead on points. That may be partly because I don't think that "bombing the living s**t out of them" is any way to achieve peace, and I do think that world opinion matters.

[B-Line]

Originally Posted by JCL

Eric:

I am glad you posted in this thread. It caused me to go look up a few things that you and B-Line posted, to learn more.

At this point, I think you are ahead on points. That may be partly because I don't think that "bombing the living s**t out of them" is any way to achieve peace, and I do think that world opinion matters.

JCL,

Do you realize that by supporting Eric's view what you are actually saying is:
The way to get Hamas to stop launching missiles at Israel is to give them military, strategic positions of land.
- This means you are actually rewarding them for their attacks on innocent civilians and children.. Thus further encouraging other hostile and terrorist organizations to conclude that prolonged terrorist attacks will also lead to land rewards in the future.

You don't give a dog a cookie for biting your hand.

Furthermore, as a Jew, as a Zionist, I can tell you, neither the people of Israel or myself could give a flying care about the court of world opinion.

You need to remember that Israel is a country that is largely populated by survivors of the holocaust that no other countries wanted to take in, including the countries that expelled and tried to exterminate them.

So what the Canadians, the French, the Germans, etc. think in regards to the way Israel chooses to defend itself against terrorists who want to push the Jews into the sea is entirely MOOT.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by B-Line

JCL,

Do you realize that by supporting Eric's view what you are actually saying is:
The way to get Hamas to stop launching missiles at Israel is to give them military, strategic positions of land.
- This means you are actually rewarding them for their attacks on innocent civilians and children.. Thus further encouraging other hostile and terrorist organizations to conclude that prolonged terrorist attacks will also lead to land rewards in the future.

You don't give a dog a cookie for biting your hand.

Furthermore, as a Jew, as a Zionist, I can tell you, neither the people of Israel or myself could give a flying care about the court of world opinion.

You need to remember that Israel is a country that is largely populated by survivors of the holocaust that no other countries wanted to take in, including the countries that expelled and tried to exterminate them.

So what the Canadians, the French, the Germans, etc. think in regards to the way Israel chooses to defend itself against terrorists who want to push the Jews into the sea is entirely MOOT.

That is not what I said at all. I said that I found his points interesting, and I had more in common with some of them than with some of your statements. That doesn't mean that I support everything Eric has posted, but I am glad he did post. That's all.

I think that killing civilians with aerial bombardments is an unlikely way to end a conflict. I realize that you don't support that view. I don't believe that your 'Chicago way' will bring peace to the middle east. I don't think that alluding to Arabs as dogs, even indirectly, is helpful.

I do think that the court of world opinion matters. I think that the government of Israel realizes that too.

I am not taking sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict here. But in a debate, I tend to discount arguments that use phrases like 'shit for brains'. I think we can all do better than that.

[B-Line]

Originally Posted by JCL

I don't think that alluding to Arabs as dogs, even indirectly, is helpful.

I don't think that's a fair statement at all. I never even implied that I thought of Arabs as dogs. Matter of fact, I have nothing against Arabs at all. I hold no ill will, prejudice or dislike of anyone. I have many Arab friends, some of them are Christian, some of them are Muslim.

The ONLY people I have I'll will towards are those who want the unified goal of the destruction of Israel. They could be German, or Polish or Austrian or Egyptian or Arab. Their background, nationality and religion have no relevance on my opinion. The only people I want to see put down are those that take action against Israel. And unfortunately that includes the people that hide them, the people that finance them.

My statement, you don't reward a dog that bites you is not now or was ever intended to suggest that Arabs are dogs. That's quite a stretch of an interpretation.

If you want to know how I feel about someone, just ask. I'm more than happy to try to verbalize my thoughts as clear as I can.

Furthermore, my opinion of retaliatory attacks will change 1000 percent as soon as Israeli's enemies stop attacking innocent civilians, recognize Israel as a legitimate state and promote it's future.

[B-Line]

Originally Posted by JCL

I think that killing civilians with aerial bombardments is an unlikely way to end a conflict.

I agree. I've also never interpreted any attack by Israel that I can think of off hand to be a direct aerial bombardment of civilians.

And if you hide your rockets and your terrorists in schools then unfortunately, innocent civilians are going to get killed in the collateral.

I don't know and have never advocated unrestricted and civilian targeted bombings.

But if you keep dropping bombs on the leaders, on the terrorists, on those hiding the leaders and the terrorists, you're going to take out the leadership and things will be relatively quiet until new leadership forms.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by B-Line

I've also never interpreted any attack by Israel that I can think of off hand to be a direct aerial bombardment of civilians.

Do you suppose for a moment that the civilians being bombed have the same opinion?

Originally Posted by B-Line

I don't know and have never advocated unrestricted and civilian targeted bombings.

So restricted bombing that still kills civilians is OK? What are acceptable collateral losses?

All I am saying is that there is more than one side to this.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by JCL

Do you suppose for a moment that the civilians being bombed have the same opinion?

Of course not! When Israel bombs the 4-story apartment building where a Hamas leader lives and kills most of the people who live there including 9 of his children (this happened earlier today), they were not intentionally bombing civilians. But when a Palestinean suicide bomber blows himself up half a block away from an Israeli leader and kills 35 civilians, then he was intentionally trying to kill civilians (not the Israeli leader). Double standard? Of course not! Palestineans are evil terrorists and Israelis are good.

Here is a large poll that was taken of the Palestinean population a couple of months ago:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...eace_2008.html

What you'll notice is that the large majority does not agree with the Hamas stance that Israel must be destroyed. Most also say they support the peace process. However, the majority do support attacks on Israel.

Apparently they believe the best chance for peace is to continue to attack Israel. Do you find it strange that they believe that?

I don't find it strange, because polls of Israelis show the same exact viewpoint. Most say they support the peace process, but most support the current bombing of Gaza.

Idiotic to say the least. But that is how people think. And until one side figures out that such a strategy will not work, there will continue to be fighting.

[B-Line]

Originally Posted by JCL

Do you suppose for a moment that the civilians being bombed have the same opinion?

So restricted bombing that still kills civilians is OK? What are acceptable collateral losses?

All I am saying is that there is more than one side to this.

Do you mean the civilians in Gaza that are being bombed? Or do you mean the civilians in Israel that are being bombed (rocketed)?
- Cause if there was a lessor of two evils I would say that Israel that is seeking military targets is the lesser evil. Whereas the Hamas rockets are being launched intentionally into civilian populations with the intent of killing civilians..

Yes, restricted bombing that kills civilians is okay, especially if the leaders of the groups attacking Israel are intentionally hiding behind their civilians to try to win the war of public opinion.

Accepted collateral losses should be minimized as much as possible, while allowing Israel to exterminate the terrorists who continue to attack it. If someone were to say, killing any more than 10 is unacceptable, then Hamas would hide behind 20. If someone said that 20 dead is unacceptable, then Hamas would hide behind 40.

And while I agree with you, there is more than one side to the issue. There is always more than one side to an issue. But sometimes you gotta pick a side. And for my money, I'm going to pick the side of the small country that keeps getting attacked by it's neighbors in an effort to destroy it.

And while I try to remember that there is a large number of people, the Palestinians who are going through very, very, very tough and horrible times, they will never see my support as they continue to attack Israel and it's civilians in war after war after war..

There is a long history of violence against Jews in the Middle East and I believe those Jews have the right to defend themselves. And they don't need to give land to people who keep attacking them. They were getting attacked by the same people long before the new map of 1967...