PhotoDude.com

I know, it's hard, but try for a second to put yourself in the shoes of the leadership of the radical Islamic movements. You propose a unilateral conditional truce to the other party (i.e., Sharon's regime), and the other party responds with suspicion, threats ("it's just to buy time" kind of attitude) and, almost immediately, non-compliance of the conditions. Still, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah keep the truce for a bit less than two months. Then Hamas delivers the message, with the bloody despicable methods that are used far too many times. I thought it was mighty clear what the whole suicide bombing was about but, from what I read in your post, I guess it wasn't that transparent. Let me put it in words: "We still stand for the truce, but we are not imbeciles". The way it was delivered, the message was not only detestable, but absolutely counterproductive. It was, evidently, what the Sharon regime was looking for, any reason to hit back. And they did. And now, as Hamas clearly stated, truce is over. Technically, however, there was never a truce: Israel never fully accepted it. But whatever attempt of peace came from the radical side it's gone, at least for a good while. This does not imply, in any way, that "killing a half dozen Jewish children is just a part of a regular business day". A couple of reminders: 1. Not only Abu Shanab and his bodyguards were killed. 15 civilians were also hurt in the assassination. 2. When the Islamic resistance uses terrorist methods, they are justly repudiated. What about the Israeli government? If there is going to be a valid list of foreign terrorist organizations, the current regime in Israel should be given a special place in it (or do you know of any other organization that carry operations with their own F-16?)

“I thought it was mighty clear what the whole suicide bombing was about but, from what I read in your post, I guess it wasn't that transparent. Let me put it in words: ‘We still stand for the truce, but we are not imbeciles’ ” No, it wasn't transparent to me at all. It was covered with the blood of children. I'm shocked anyone could see a coherent rational message through that. Their choice of action didn't tell me what they “are not,” but “what they are.” Here's another thing that's not clear to me. When Hamas has a message to deliver, during a self-declared truce, why must it come in the form of a suicide bomb attack on innocent civilians? Do these people not have a dictionary, the ability to covert their rage into sentences, and the passion to deliver them? Or alternately, the balls to attack something other than a bus of civilians, like a military target? As long as they clearly demonstrate the answer to that question is an emphatic NO, and do so by killing children, they will be seen as what they are: Despicable bastards who prove time and again under wide circumstances that they can only communicate one way. It should be no surprise that they will be answered in kind. You claim Hamas acted because Sharon fell into “almost immediately, non-compliance of the conditions” of the Road Map. Yet you've previously said, “Eliminating the popular support of Hamas is definitely the way to go, the question is how. I would favor more work on undermining their raison d'etre than following Sharon's style of intimidation, physical elimination and, through “collateral damage”, indirect support.” This, too, was a condition built into the Road Map, as Abbas was supposed to disarm and defang Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He, too, fell into almost immediate non-compliance. Further, he refused to ever do so, saying it would precipitate civil war (one wonders why he signed on to the agreement at all, if that's the case). But of course, that non-compliance is somehow totally different than that of Sharon. "Not only Abu Shanab and his bodyguards were killed. 15 civilians were also hurt in the assassination." That's truly a shame. I'm very sorry that in targeting a terrorist leader, some innocent civilians were injured. However, did you hear about the incident where nothing but innocent civilians were injured and killed, because they were the target? If you want to be a bodyguard for a Hamas leader, you take on the risk of death, so I shed no tears for them. But I guess it matters little to the injured innocents in either case what the attackers intended. However, those of us on the outside are left to judge their intent. To me, this one's no contest. “When the Islamic resistance uses terrorist methods, they are justly repudiated. What about the Israeli government? If there is going to be a valid list of foreign terrorist organizations, the current regime in Israel should be given a special place in it (or do you know of any other organization that carry operations with their own F-16?)” Wow, I hardly know where to begin with that statement. I have to start by trying to understand why you and I have such diametrically opposite views of Israel, and I can only take a guess at that. Historical perspective. There was once this country that lost over 20 million of its sons defending it from invasion about 60 years ago. It was the Germans then, but it had been the French before them, and the Mongol Hordes before them, ad inifinitum. Over time, it becomes a part of the national conciousness ... “we must be strong and ever vigilant of attack, because it is just a matter of time...” As they recovered from the latest invasion, they began what many saw as an “expansionist policy.” Sometimes by military means, and sometimes simply because they occupied the land after WWII, they built a buffer zone around the Motherland. Many saw them as an Evil Empire, out to take over the world with their Communist philosophy. Some of that may have been true. But what I saw was a country saying, “the next conventional war will not be fought in Russia, destroying Russian towns and killing Russian civilians. It will be fought in Germany.” I saw a country paranoid of outsider attacks (a historically well grounded paranoia, at that), creating defensive depth for the next war. Which, as history had shown them over and over, would surely come (even though it didn't, and they collapsed under their empirical weight). And there was once another country, born out of the deaths of millions. From its very first day, its neighbors for hundreds of miles around had literally vowed to drive them into the sea. Over the course of 30 years, they tried four times, twice coming uncomfortably close to succeeding in this country that is as little as 50 miles wide. There is no defensive depth, and the only expansion into surrounding lands came as the result of war: “Since you have a propensity for launching large armored columns out of the Sinai, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, we will occupy them.” The vast majority of that land has been given back, and a nervous peace made with a couple of neighbors. But the national conciousness remains, and is reinforced by every bombing: “We always have been, and always will be at risk from those who wish to destroy us.” 55 years of that. What kind of national mindset do you think that builds? Ignore it at your own peril. You may not agree with their acts, but you need to understand the framework behind it, because it isn't changing. I don't agree with everything Israel does, far from it. For example, I oppose even one settlement in the West Bank. Nevermind territorial issues, I think it's strategically stupid. But in their mindset, they see it as breaking up a contiguous territory that opposes them. A fracturing of their ability to transport and marshall resistance. So while you see Israel as a terrorist organization, I see a country that has been attacked by all comers for 55 years simply for existing as a nation, fertilizing a harshly defensive mindset within that nation. I hate to reduce talk of people and nations to animal metaphors, but it's the classic whipped dog syndrome. Except in this case, the whipped dog has grown much bigger than the neighborhood dogs who'd been whippin' on him. And yet, they still nip at the big whipped dog anyway, then cry bloody murder when he answers with his teeth at their throat. You and I have reached this very point before, so I don't expect either of us are likely to change our mind. Back then, I quoted Voltaire: “A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.” However, I'm willing to say an attack during a supposed truce that intentionally targets and kills 20 innocent people, including 5 children (and 40 more kids wounded), is much more wrong than an attack in response that intentionally targets and kills a terrorist leader, but also unfortunately injures 15 innocent civilians. The only thing I think you and I can agree on about this issue is that more innocent people are going to die. A lot of them. In fact, I'd be willing to place bets we'll still be talking about them still dying when I'm blogging from my retirement home. But I probably won't be replying with semi-temperate 1300 word responses by then (you'll have to fill in that blank yourself). Nor would they likely have any more effect on your opinion then than now.