Tophel

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']Basically the question at hand for everybody is: Is a comment made with no malicious intent still the same as making a hateful remark? [QUOTE] In short, yes. Maybe it differs in degree but it is still an offence and it is still offensive. Here is why: The offense arises not from the intent of the person making the comment but from a REASONABLE response from the person receiving it. So you may call a black person a '******' without malice, but that is still offensive. You may comment on a fellow worker's bottom or her breasts without intending offense, eg as a compliment, but that does not mean it is not reasonable for her to perceive it as sexual harassment. And this is as it should be because we cannot read someone's mind.

As for the questions posed by the OP, I should point out here, for those who may think these questions are thinly veiled attacks on religion this is not necessarily so. These are interesting and fundamental questions which have been discussed by theologians for a long time. Of course I cannot read minds and do not know if 13th had any ulterior motives which has more to do with creating mischief than with promoting discussion but I would like to take it on face value and assume the latter. Also, I think it is important that believers and non-believers talk to one another. I think it to be narrow-minded and dangerously insular to only talk to people who share your own belief system. Talking does not need to be prosetylizing, either one way or another. Talking helps in many ways, not the least of which is the strengthening of one's faith by understanding it better and more clearly. Talking is not weakness and questioning is not disloyalty. The substantive answer to the questions posed by the OPer has been made by one or two posts already in this thread. It is the fundamental idea of Free Will. This is fundamental to the Christian faith. Let me explain. Why does God let suffering happen? One answer is that we cannot understand the mind of God. This answer is simple, requires little thought and covers everything. Unlike other progressive theologians who may argue that such an answer is contrary to the divine gift of Reason to Man, I don't think it is any less valid. To me, it is a legitimate point of view. But it is limited, and it does shut down any and all discussions. And I understand also why it may be regarded as a 'cop-out'. So putting aside that all-out excuse, why does God let suffering occur? If we say that suffering occurs because it is caused by Man so it is our fault and responsibility, that doesn't really answer the question. If we accept God is omnipotent and God is good, it should not matter who is responsible for the suffering. God, being infinitely compassionate, would not let it happen. There does seem a contradiction. If God is all-powerful that means He can do anything. If God is all loving, this means He would not tolerate suffering. The two, together, seems to suggest that there should be no suffering. Either God is all-powerful but not infinitely compassionate, so He can tolerate suffering (for what ever reason), or He is infinitely compassionate but not all-powerful (so he cannot intervene). How do we explain this contradiction? It seems to me the answer lies in Free Will. If Man is really created in God's image, we are all God's Children. As such we all have a soul and we are endowed with Reason and Free Will. If God intervenes, His presence is demonstrated and Free Will is ripped from us. To know God, not through Faith but through Science, through what we regard as 'Proof', is to be imprisoned and bound by that knowledge. Our divine gifts of curiosity, intellect and reason would not be exercised. We would fall totally dependant on God. We would no longer have Free Will but be slaves. If God is truly loving and compassionate, this is not what He would want. So God cannot intervene, so suffering exists.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I find it interesting that you took the time to comment on what you felt was off with Esther's post and yet completely ignored Chabichou's equally offensive and flagrantly incorrect post.[/quote] From my reading, both seemed on the ends of the spectrum but I would consider Esther's post a lot more vitrolic, based on prejudice and huge ill-informed whereas Chabi, whilst taking a spin on things, at least demonstrates an understanding of the issues and is better informed. Equally offensive? Debatable. Flagrantly incorrect? No where near the universe that esther's post inhabits. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']If you're going to compare them to Nazi Germany then someone needs a serious history lesson.[/quote] Godwin's law in effect. That was specious and not a good idea. I understand where it comes from, i.e. the ruthlessness of the Israeli state, but Nazi comparisons should be limited IMO. Too easy. However, the terrorist state comment is defendable. You may not agree with it, but one can certainly make that argument based on the facts. Israel has ultimate power in that area. It's military is unmatched. It can and does rain terror whenever it sees fit. And if someone thinks the Palestinians in Gaza are living under terror, they aren't being honest. Or if they think the 'terror' from rockets Hamas fires is anywhere the near the equivalence of the terror that is now raining down on Gaza, again they are being disingenous. IMO it is amply clear, beyond any reasonable interpretation, that Israel does inflict terror. The reasons for that can be debated and people can have different opinions but it isn't a clearly absurd or flagrantly incorrect statement. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']Nice insinuation that American's fund terrorists and yet you conveniently overlooked this one Retri.[/quote] Well that is silly. I mean your point. Again, it is well established that America is tied to the hip with Israel. So much so, there has not been a single President who has ever rebuked Israel or taken a negative view of the state. Except for Jimmy Carter, but that was AFTER he left office, and he took a huge beating about it. The blind American support towards Israel is, to the rest of the world, even including Britain, quote at odds with the factual situation on the ground. American support is clear and obvious, both politically and militarily (in terms of weapons and intelligence) and if one takes the view that Israel is a state that practices terror, then that insinuation can be made quite easily. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']I'm sorry, but who's the one who's goal in their government literally[I] is[/I] that it will destroy the state of Israel? And yet we're supposed to believe that Hamas actually wants peace?[/quote] Hamas is impotent. Israel is not. The ball is obviously in Israeli's court. To suggest that Hamas and Israel are equal powers or have equal responsibilities is an absurdity. As for the much talk about clause in the Hamas charter (it seems we keep talking about this for some weird reason), as I've said so many times in this thread. Empty words. --- sorry gotogo be back later to edit

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]I can assure you Tophel that any mocking of vegan/vegetarians/etc is light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek rather than anything serious. Surely you can see the ridiculousness of this move by PETA as much as anyone else which has thus lead to the satire of what PETA stands for. As for calling OB a "conservative board" I have to admit you've given me a good chuckle with that one. While there are an array of political views expressed here on Otakuboards, I would say that those in the centre and left-wing far outnumber those on the right.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Yes, I see the ridiculous nature of PETA's latest move. I think I said earlier that this move was likely to hurt more than help their cause. It's not like they haven't been written off as nut jobs and this move by them only further marginalises them. Stupid IMO. And OB, from what I have seen of it, is a conservative board. It seems to me it is a little like moderate Republicans. Socially progressive, i.e. not your born-again Christian Bush supporter. But politically conservative, i.e. Hugo Chavez probably doesn't have a strong fan base here. Just check out the Israel thread. While brief passing reference is made to the Palestinians, the bulk of the comments are in support of Israel. But if there was a thread in support of gay or lesbian rights, then you are likely to get more sympathy. Methinks.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]And if you look really closely you suddenly notice a distinct omnivorous nature to the human digestive system. We weren't designed to eat just meat or just veggies. We were designed for both. Fortunately our systems don't seem to break down when one or the other are omitted, or vegetarians would be up a creek. (Of course, we wouldn't have to deal with Vegans then, but eh. I like my sane vegetarian friends, thank you.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] I really don't mean to be disrespectful here. I say that openly. But IMO I believe you need a bit more care with what you say. Omnivore classification for humans is a cop out. Most people are aware we can eat vegetables or meat. We do it all the time. But where does our evolutionary history take us? I think it is very clear, in terms of science anyway, our bodies are more vegetarian than carnivore. We can eat meat, yes, but that is not only a recent development and it is not where we are biologically speaking. There is a simple test. There are many people who can go on for weeks, months, even years, eating vegetables and not touching any meat. Compared that to how many people go weeks/months/years eating JUST meat and no vegetables. So it really isn't true that we can omit vegetables. Then you will see that we are more vegetarian than carnivore, and we aren't truly omnivores. Yes, I know on a conservative board like this one, it is cool to mock vegans/vegetarians/etc but putting value-laden considerations aside, purely speaking in terms of our biology, we are certainly more vegetarian than anything else.

[quote name='Manic Webb']However, I'm not going to deny my natural instinct to eat meats and fishes (especially considering their health benefits) just because killing animals for the purpose of ingestion is less than kind.[/QUOTE] Well, actually, if you're talking modern day lifespans of 80+ yrs, meat is actually not good for you. Certainly not on a daily basis. Humans can eat meat yes but we were never really carnivores. If you look at our digestive system and especially our teeth we are more vegetarian than carnivore. Meat, in particular, red meat is a booster. So when we had lifespans of 40+ yrs (which was only until a couple of centuries ago), the protein in meat provided easy and quick energy. It also helps a little with brain development. But as you age the consequences of eating meat build up and the negative begins to outweigh the positive. Which is why nutritionists normally recommend eating red meat only about 3 times a week. Anyway, the short of it is that meat, in this modern urban age does not really have 'health benefits'. Generally speaking, provided you do it reasonably and sensibly, being a vegetarian is better for you than being a steak-a-day or even 3-steaks-a-week carnivore. But all of this is moot because most people separate fish meat from red meat. The most unhealthy is red meat followed by fowl followed by fish. Sea kittens are actually good for you. :animesmil

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I'm sure there is at least one PETA supporter here, but in my opinion they needed shut down years ago. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a group that makes sure animals aren't treated overly cruel, but that's not what they're about. [/QUOTE] Well I wouldn't paint the entire group with the same brush. Though whoever thought this idea up obviously hasn't thought this through. It actually does damage to PETA which in turn reduces their capacity to do good for animal welfare. Unless its some satirical joke campaign. Even then, they should know better, and that people would much rather not get it, take them seriously and make fun of them. It's a shame, I thought PETA used to do quite a lot for animals. Now they're just the butt of jokes.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']What is important is getting both sides to stop. And that includes holding Hamas responsible for accepting that Israel has the right to exist. I grow tired of all the anti-Israel sentiment when the other side is equally to blame for idiotic stunts.[/QUOTE] And I grow tired of people sympathising with Israel and blaming everything on Hamas. I have never suggested that Hamas is not at fault. But if you read this thread, until I came in and cleared up some misapprehensions, most posters were fully behind Israel's actions. Any qualifications were short and glib at best. The focus was entirely on the wrongs of Hamas. After I made a couple of posts critical of Israel people were more open about the complex nature of this conflict. The reality, as I see it, is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Israel's hands are NOT clean. If we are tough on Hamas for its violence and indiscriminate launching of rockets, we ought to be EQUALLY tough on Israel and its siege on Gaza to punish the entire 1.5 million people, its refusal to deal in any way with Hamas or recognise its legitimacy as elected representatives of the people of Gaza. Although you may not agree with her, here is an article I recommend people read to see the 'other side'. It is written by a Jew. [URL="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shocking-cynicism-of-a-poisoned-homeland/2009/01/07/1231004100045.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1"]http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shocking-cynicism-of-a-poisoned-homeland/2009/01/07/1231004100045.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1[/URL] [quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]I'm beginning to wonder why people don't read up on WHY things happen instead of pointing fingers.... Perhaps they shouldn't have been digging a tunnel under the border in the first place. So now they're the bad guys for stopping that? I sincerely hope you're not serious. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Firstly, you are taking the word of the Israeli military at face value, as if they are completely objective. Not a good idea when this is the military force of one of the sides. But let me engage in a discussion, let me try to be constructive, let me accept your argument. If you want people to go further and understand WHY Israel made the incursion, then I would ask you why stop there? Have you ever considered, again ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that Hamas was at fault there and they were building a tunnel to smuggle arms/kidnap Israeli soldier/whatever, why Hamas was doing this? Could it possibly be because one of the CONDITIONS of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was that Israel would lift the blockade on Gaza. Has Israel kept its part of the deal? No, the blockade was not lifted. Another condition was Israel release ELECTED government officials that Israel keeps behind bars. They are still there. So it isn't really as simple as you may want to believe. Israel are not the angels you may want them to be, and Hamas may not be the demons they have been portrayed as, regardless of whatever has been said about them. Ultimately I will again give the example of the PLO, mainly because I don't think people have absorbed what I said earlier. The PLO (or now Fatah) was an ugly nasty terrorist organisation. These people massacred the entire Israel athletics team during the Munich Olympic Games. The hijacked and blew up planes. Their leader, Yasser Arafat, was targeted by Israel for assasination several times. Year after year, Israel refused to deal with them. How do you negotiate with fanatics who want you dead? But finally, about 20 years ago, Israel changed tactics, they conducted secret talks with the PLO. These led to the Oslo accords, and Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres signed the agreement on the Whitehouse lawn. These mortal enemies hate each other, Rabin has often said he would not be in the same room as Arafat. But on that day, he shook Arafat's hand, urged by Clinton who stood between them. Rabin hated it, but he did it anyway. You don't make peace with your friends or people you like or respect. You make peace with your enemies, people you dislike and distrust. The idea of sidelining Hamas and demanding they surrender their weapons and recognise Israel before talking to them is the surest way to ensure this conflict continues. So I would just ask that people keep an open mind.

Guys relax. It's a joke. Just read the content. It is so outrageous (and funny in a dark twisted way) that is yells 'satire' or some such thing. Enjoy it. Or if you don't find anything funny about it, just ignore it. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this but I'm not 100% certain (can anyone be 100% certain of anything?) :)

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial] Actually, I found the slogans to be rather clever. My favorite was this one: [INDENT][I]?Atheism: Sleep in on Sunday mornings,?[/I][/INDENT] I admit it. I snerked. :animesmil[/FONT][/QUOTE] Yes, that was a good one. A shame the Australian authorities didn't see the funny side of it and banned/refused it for their buses. Heheh. Does this mean Australians lack a sense of humour compared to the British? Hmm.... :animesmil

[quote name='TimeChaser']I wouldn't take a full personality profile of Richard on just a South park episode; they send up EVERYONE.[/quote] :rotflmao: No I've seen his documentaries and interviews. He seems a little obssessed with convincing everyone that he is right. An overabundance of ego combined with a lack of empathy. [quote name='TimeChaser'] The issue is this: religion has somehow achieved this charmed status where people are allowed to get very offended if someone is at all critical of it. Richard and his contemporaries want to put religion on the table of rational criticism, and allow us to discuss it open and freely in the same we we debate politics and music and any other intellectual subjects.[/quote] Well actually I would have to disagree. He doesn't really want to engage in any sort of debate/discussion. He would rather lecture. Like priests lecture us about sin, Hell and fire and brimstone, only he lectures about evolution and the evils of religion. Same pulpit, same tone, just a different message. I consider him a secular fundamentalist. [quote name='Mr. Blonde'] The man believes there is no God, so because he insists it he has a chip of his shoulder? What of someone who insists there is a God, do they as well?[/QUOTE] Yep. They're called Bible thumpers. :animesmil

[quote name='NinjaGirlSango']I'm an atheist, and therefore terribly biased, but if churches can display a link to a website that says "you're going to hell" instead of "you're probably going to hell", why must an atheist ad include the "probably"?[/QUOTE] Because the statement is on the website and not in the ad itself? I thikn that is fair enough. I agree with Shy that the majority of atheists, in my experience as well, are more cynical/jaded/unhappy than their religious counterparts. This doesn't mean that I haven't met a happy atheist (I have) or an unhappy Christian (many times). But there seems, IMO, something intrinsic in human nature that requires we have some sort of 'spiritual' side. At least that is the only reason to me to explain why 95%+ of the world's population, even today with all the advances in science and communications and travel, are religious in some way even if they are not devout. By the way, is it just me or does Richard Dawkins have some massive chip on his shoulder about religions? He comes across to me as a smug mean and grumpy guy. I love the South Park episodes. Heheh.

I have seen most of Book 1 and I have to say this is a decent show. I know the puritans might disagree but I classify this as anime. Sure it isn't done by Japanese but IMO anime refers to a style, and there is no question in my mind that this animation references the anime style. I have enjoyed a series like this since... hmm... Cowboy Bebop probably.

Not sure I'm a fan of the new Doc. I hope they're not going for the teen crowd. He seems a little too young for my liking. Oh well, Moffatt is in charge and he did well with his scripts, hopefully he knows what he is doing.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I suppose the only good news is that most of those areas aren't quite the same as far as size goes as the U.S., which means that they won't be quite as stranded as we would be if we had no gas. 50 miles is a long way to bike to work and back every day. Not that it's any consolation.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I don't think its that kind of 'gas'. :animesmil Shy's right Russia is just trying to bully Ukraine. It will end the same way that the same crises ended in 2006 (yep Russia tried the same stunt a couple of years ago, that's why the disruptions, esp in western europe, would not be as bad because they learnt their lesson and have big stores of gas to cover temporary supply cuts). It will end in some sort of agreement between Russia and Ukraine. For those who might not understand the background, Russia supplies Ukraine's natural gas needs. Russia is trying to bully Ukraine into accepting huge increases (double or triple the cost) for 2009. Also Russia is insisting Ukraine pay some $600 mil in 'penalties' or something. Ukraine obviously is not happy about all this. The complication is that Russia sells its gas to Europe but the pipes go through Ukraine. Also Ukraine is arguing that if needs to pay more for gas, then it needs to get a bigger cut of the money from the gas going through the country. Long story short, it is a ***** fight which is mainly commercial but has political overtones. Europe is trying not to get involved.

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="1"]There will never be peace with Hamas, and suggesting that there can be is beyond naive[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] That's exactly what they said about the PLO. Remember back in the 70s/80s the PLO were hijacking plans and killing civilians. In fact, the PLO are responsible for one of the worse Olympics atrocities, during the Munich games in 1972 the PLO broke into the Israeli compound and took the athletes as hostages. The German try and failed in the rescue and all the hostages were killed. I think Spielberg made a film about it. So let's not kid ourselves, the PLO were a nasty bunch of people too. But now, the US and Israel are happy to be talking to Abbas, one of the co-founders of the PLO. Also let me repeat what I told James, the PLO had a very similar clause in its charter about not recognizing Israel's right to exist. It didn't stop Israel from holding secret talks with them that ended in the Oslo accords and Nobel Peace prizes for Arafat, Rabin and Peres (Arafat was head of the PLO, Rabin was the Israeli PM and Peres his foregin minister). It all ended in tears after Benjamin Netanyahu (a right wing politician in Israel) labelled Rabin a traitor and he was assassinated by his own people because he dared to try to make peace. Benjamin, by the way, is forecast to win the Israeli elections next month and become PM again (oh what joy!). [quote name='Aaryanna'][FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="Sienna"] And since when did those lives suddenly become meaningless since they are so few?[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] In my personal opinion there is no hierarchy of races/religions in terms of life. A Jewish life is as valuable (or cheap) as a Muslim life, or a Christian one for that matter. Similarly, a Palestinian life is not worth less because it is Palestinian. A child living in Gaza, killed by Israeli shelling is equally as much a tragedy as a child blown up by a suicide bomber in Israel. It disgusts me that some people think Muslim or Palestinian lives are some how worth less. Hamas' rockets kills about one Israeli each year. Israel has killed over 600 in two weeks. The unarmed civilian count is somewhere between 40-50% of that number. You do the maths and tell me if that is an appropriate response. [quote name='Rachmaninoff'] Israel was honoring the cease fire in spite of the rockets for a long time.[/QUOTE] Honoring the ceasefire? I'm not sure what your definition for holding a truce would be, but in my mind, a truce doesn't involve continuing to hunt down and assassinate leaders of your opponent. Or to close their borders and lay siege to a city of 1.5 million. When you do these things, are you really surprise if your opponents retailates in some way? Who broke the ceasefire is not as clear cut as you may think. Both sides are to blame here.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Retaliation to threat, in this case rockets, is perfectly legitimate under any law. Furthermore, there is no provision ANYWHERE in the HISTORY of war for "proportional" response.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Then you must not be looking very hard. The right of every country to self-defense in the UN Charter goes hand in hand with the responsibility to do so in a proportional way. This does NOT mean if you lob a rocket I lob a rocket. It DOES mean that if you lob a rocket that, on average, kills A SINGLE PERSON A YEAR, I don't have the right to to launch a massive invasion with warplanes and tanks that kills 500+ and injures 2000+, many of whom are unarmed civilians. [quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"][B]lolwut?[/B] Since when was war or any form of conflict ever proportional? [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Believe it or not, there are rules, even in war. Sometimes some countries don't abide by the rules but they exist and are internationally recognized. It is a rather niave cynicism, prevalent amongst precocious teenagers (not saying you are one, just commenting generally), to think that all the laws and rules that bind us are thrown out the window during war. Which is why, rape for example, cannot be used as a method of intimidation. Or why the US didn't just throw a few nukes at the Vietnamese. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Peace is hard, but war is never easy. War is an especially difficult decision, because it can (and regularly does) place much greater stresses on a situation.[/font][/quote] War is easy. It requires no compromise, no reflection, no self-awareness. No hard choices. Just the obliteration of the enemy. Especially for a military might such as Israel, who have yet to lose a major war since its inception. Peace is harder because it requires self-examination, the ability to move forward and envision a future beyond the past. Just ask one of the most decorated Israeli soldiers, Yithzak Rabin. Oh wait, you can't, he was assassinated a decade ago by one of his own people because he wanted to make peace. He was killed after being labelled a traitor and after Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud (a right wing party in Israel) whipped up fire and fury against Rabin's plans for peace with the Palestinians. The same Benjamin who is in the wings and which the polls suggest is favourite to win next month. Cowards make war. Men of courage and conviction make peace. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium] Are you aware that Hamas's founding principles - their charter or constitution, if you will - refers to the essential need to destroy the State of Israel? Peace can not be achieved by continuing a conflict, I agree. However, peace [i]definitely[/i] can't be achieved when one side's stated goal is to eliminate the other.[/font][/quote] That's funny because a similar clause was contained in the PLO charter, the PLO being the government authority in the West Bank tha Abbas runs (his faction is Fatah). In fact, the PLO was a designated terrorist organisation when it entered into secret talks in the 90s. You don't begin meaningful peace talks by demanding the other side surrender first before the talks begin. That's the surest way to make sure peace never comes. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]You can't suggest that acts of terrorism against civilians are "a nuisance" simply because the death toll is lower than some other series of events.[/font][/quote] I can when the death toll is an average of ONE PER YEAR. If you are going to tell me with a straight face that such incidents are a genuine threat to the security of the Israeli state, then there is really nothing I can say to prove otherwise. It'd be like talking about evolution in science to a person speaking creationism in religion. Anyone who suggests that what Hamas was doing was a genuine threat to Israel and was so serious that it required a massive invasion into Gaza killing hundreds and injuring thousands, many of whom are unarmed civilians, is not being reasonable or even rational. [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Put simply, Hamas clearly has no interest in real governance. It has done nothing to improve the lives of its people and instead continues down a path that only further aggrivates the living conditions of its people.[/font][/quote] And what has Israel done since Hamas came to power in Gaza? They, along with the US, tried a coup, which failed. They then lay siege to 1.5 million people, cutting off borders. Unemployment is running at 40-50%. What is the unemployment rate where you live? Again, the facts speak for themselves. Israel and the US have never tried to engage Hamas. They have done nothing but denounce and demonise. Hamas is an ugly organisation and many of its leaders are nasty people. But if you want peace you need to look past that, you need to be able to look forward and not just backwards. I'm not going to convince anyone here. There is too much propaganda flying around. And besides, most people don't know much the Middle East, and those who do are worse, they know just enough to confirm their own prejudices. The reality is that it takes two to tango. There are hardliners amongst the Israelis and there are hardliners amongst the Palestinians. And the irony is that they support each other. Much like Bush and Ahmadinejad. Neither wants peace. They thrive on confrontation and conflict and it energises and re-enforces their power. Until another Rabin comes along, Israel will make no real efforts towards peace. Likewise, until another Arafat the Palestinians will remain divided and fractured. Abbas is not up to the job.

Israel cannot win here. There is no military solution to the Palestinian issue. The only way Israel will get any peace is if it makes peace. But peace is hard. War is easy. So war is being waged. As for the OP question about breaking international laws, etc. Well few people actually care about that. The US breaks those laws all the time. In this particular case, Israel is breaking the law, both the letter and the spirit. Every country is allowed to defend itself but its actions must be PROPORTIONAL to the threat. In 7 or 8 years of pestering Israel with its pathetic rockets, Hamas has killed about 7 people in those attacks. In over a week of operations, Israel has slaughtered over 500 so far, and counting. The numbers don't add up. Hamas is really not a threat to Israel or its citizens. The rockets are more a nuisance than anything else. More people die on the roads in Israel each month alone than have died in 7 years of rocket fire. No the 'reason' for the war lies elsewhere. Israel wants to change the ground situation before Obama takes office (because Israel knows that Bush will gladly follow Israel to the gates of Hell). There is also an election in Israel coming up next month and no Israeli politician has suffered by being 'too hard' on Hamas. What is ironic is that Bush talks about democracy in the Middle East (or he used to). They had democracy, the people elected Hamas. But the US and Israel cannot accept the Palestinian peoples' choice so they tried to stage a coup (the US and Israel supported Fatah in its attemppts to overthrow Hamas in the Gaza). The coup failed, Hamas' control strengthened. So they tried to starve Hamas by punishing the entire 1.5 million people in Gaza, i.e. closing the borders, basically like a medieval siege. That has been going on for months, actually over a year now. And now they take it a step further and wage a war. The irony? The US wants democracy but only when the people elect the government the US likes. :rolleyes: Why was Hamas peppering Israel with these silly rockets? Precisely to draw this kind of reaction. Hamas can then get an excellent PR deal, and afterwards they can always claim victory. There is no downside for them because this is a political and not a military problem. Hamas WANTS Israel to overreact. So why does Israel fall for this ruse? Because there is no downside for the Israeli politicians by being 'hard' on Hamas. Everybody gets what they want. Except the thousands of civilians getting caught in the crossfire.