response 25 of 92:

Nov 11 10:12 UTC 2003

either gunfire or rocket fire .. pay attentin to the news ....

response 29 of 92:

Nov 12 07:55 UTC 2003

Let me put it in a different way. The police in your neighbourhood 
busts into a home and kills the residents. They later claim that the 
residents were guilty of murder and hence executed. Is that ok? 

response 31 of 92:

Nov 12 17:27 UTC 2003

sj2 asks in #21:

> Who is to judge whether they really were terrorists?

If they're armed and on the front, that makes it pretty easy, no?

He clarifies in #24 that he's only talking about the targeted killings and
asks if the courts are involved

The Israeli Army usually first attempts to arrest wanted men (If you read item
17, you'll see that these arrests happen nearly every day, though they are
so frequent that I've stopped reporting them). This isn't possible in many
circumstances since these terrorists are being harbored by the PA. In those
instances, the Army presents its case to the Court and gets an authorization
to kill the enemy combatant behind enemy lines.

But you've already gone down this line of questions and I've already responded.
See item 83 resp 72.


In #26, gull again demonstrates that absent any evidence he's always willing
to assume the worst about Israel and the best about terrorists.


I usually try to ignore Aaron (since he has little to contribute other than
ad hominems directed at me), but the logic in his #28 is so backward that it
deserves special mention:

> Is it any wonder that people gripped by the type of hate evidenced by
> Leeron have absolutely no compunction about murdering children?

First of all, I think no one but Aaron believes his lie that I hate Arabs.

Second, even IF I did, would that explain why terrorists murder children?

Despite Aaron's implication, Israel does not murder children. As I'm sure
Aaron knows, murder implies intent. The terrorist who kills children hiding
under their bed covers at point blank range is guilty of murder. An Israeli
soldier returning fire at a mob in which children are (intentionally*) present
is not.

* Note that the PA cancelled school so children could be present, with
teachers and others providing transportation. It was in response to this that
some within the PA complained -- but they were silenced by the editor of an
official PA paper who opined that such complaints are treason and that the
complainers should be dealt with as "collaborators" if they don't watch what
they say.

response 33 of 92:

Nov 12 20:22 UTC 2003

Israel's quite willing to use women and children as shields, as demonstrated
by them bull-dozing houses.

response 35 of 92:

Nov 13 08:38 UTC 2003

Given that your purpose in these items is to needle me (as you once
admitted and as your current outburst proves), I don't think anyone
really cares what you think especially given your inability to address
issues.  Your great contribution to this topic was an unattributed
cut-and-pasting from electricintifada, but in the 2 years since you
have been unable to address the objections I raised to that propaganda.
Can't you go beyond such twittish behavior?

response 37 of 92:

Nov 13 18:44 UTC 2003

My point in #26 was that people are always asking how Israel makes sure
they aren't killing innocents, but never seem to bat an eye when
innocents are killed by Palastinians.

The fact that lk automatically assumed I was making some kind of
anti-Israeli commentary speaks volumes about his prejudices about me. 
He decided at some point that I was an anti-Semite, and now reads
everything I post with that mental filter in place.

response 39 of 92:

Nov 14 09:32 UTC 2003

Scott, if you could address the issues of discussion then you wouldn't
be relegated to a strategy of being a twit. (With each response you prove
that unable to discuss the issues, you attack me. Consider that a challenge
to discuss the issues.)

> Re #24: I'd guess the same process by which Israelis who are killed by
> suicide bombers are convicted.

David, I don't see how #26 can be read this way. The implication is
that Israelis are "convicted" by terrorists who attempt to murder as
many civilians as possible in the "same process" that terrorists are
chosen for targetted killings.

The comparison is odious at every level.
Let me spell it out for you:

Terrorists have no process. Their aim is to kill as many innocents as
they can.  This is a gross violation of international law.

Israel does have a process. Its aim is to kill those terrorists who are
being harbored by the PA and which it cannot arrest (and with minimal loss
of civilian lives). This action is within the confines of international law.

response 41 of 92:

Nov 14 17:07 UTC 2003

useful pointer.

response 47 of 92:

Nov 15 18:30 UTC 2003

The difference isn't in long term objectives but how to get there
from here. Israel is displaying a healthy difference of opinion
that is typical in a democracy. Where are the opposing voices to Arafat?
With whom is Israel to "unilaterally" make peace?

In addition, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would be a
violation of the Oslo Accords. Tell me, when fighting between Arab
factions errupted into civil war, does anyone not believe that this
will be faulted on Israel? Would the same voices calling for such a
withdrawal not then criticize Israel for doing so and creating a
vacuum which it should have known would lead to more war and bloodshed?

response 49 of 92:

Nov 16 02:06 UTC 2003

We find it ludicrous to suggest that a negotiator with any modicum of 
common sense or historical perspective, particularly when dealing with 
fanatical Arabs, ought to  unilaterally give away its bargaining chips 
for absolutely nothing in return.  Besides leaving Israel with reduced 
capacity to bargain, it would certainly embolden the Arabs as it has in 
the past - Lebanon being a case in point.  Observers must use some 
intelligence in these matters.