U.S. Signs Peace Treaty with Al Qaeda, Agreeing to End Occupation of Afghanistan and Halt the Policy of Disproportionate Force

The U.S.-Al Qaeda conflict appears to be showing some signs of slowing down, at least temporarily, as Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden agreed on terms for a cease-fire, putting a momentary halt to years of struggle between the two enemies that have left tens of thousands of innocent Afghani civilians dead and untold others wounded. Obama agreed to sign the agreement at the urging of the European Union and the United Nations, which have been increasingly vocal about the mounting tensions between the two sides and the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

The United States rained bombs on Afghanistan beginning in the fall of 2001, leaving thousands of Afghanis dead and wounded and an untold number of homeless refugees, according to U.N. sources. The vast majority of the dead and wounded are civilians, including women and children. Citing Taliban support of Al Qaeda, the U.S. sent in ground troops in 2001 and has occupied the war-torn nation for over 7 years. Diplomats have been urging leaders from both sides to negotiate a cease-fire for years, but the United States has refused even to meet with bin Laden or to halt the hostilities, citing the likelihood of a second attack on the U.S. No attack, however, has come during that time.

The U.S. attack on Afghanistan and multi-year occupation came in response to an attack on the U.S. by 19 Al Qaeda fighters in 2001. Critics have charged that the countless number of Afghan civilians dead, wounded, or left without homes represents "a disproportionate attack of unprecedented magnitude," a U.N. spokesman stated. Hawks in the U.S. were stunned at the announcement of the ceasefire, arguing that no peace can be made with a group whose avowed goal is to destroy the United States.

Sound familiar? Perhaps from the pages of The Onion?

The story, of course, is fictitious. But the syntax and style should be highly familiar to anyone who has followed recent events in the Middle East, in which Israel launched a large-scale offensive against Hamas, following 1000-plus unprovoked Hamas rocket attacks increasingly deep into Israeli territory since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005--rockets largely launched from crowded civilian neighborhoods or schools so that any Israeli response would lead to large-scale Palestinian civilian deaths, particularly of children.

The syntax and style of the "news report" above are jarring from the first sentence of the first paragraph, which uses the phrase, "the U.S.-Al Qaeda conflict," a term no American journalist would even think to use to describe the American response to the attack on its territory on September 11, 2001 that led to an unabated war against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Terms like "children slaughtered" or "humanitarian crisis" are never used in the same sentence with "American offensive" or "American military operations," and the term "American aggression" is never used to describe what most consider the prototype of a just war in Afghanistan (although one that has been badly mismanaged and back-burnered because of the Bush administration's decision to go to war instead with Iraq).

The structure of the second paragraph is equally jarring but should be familiar to readers of media reports about Israel for three decades in media outlets ranging from the New York Times to NPR to the BBC. Reports on Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza during the last three weeks have routinely reported the number of dead in Gaza since the Israeli offensive began (now over 1100) without clearly stating the percent who were combatants, let alone the number killed from targeted attacks on rockets fired from schools, densely populated areas, etc. -the same strategy Hezbollah used in Lebanon two years ago to galvanize world opinion against Israel after its unprovoked attack on Israel.

Compare this to coverage of U.S. government press releases proudly touting the killing of any high-ranking Al Qaeda official or successful attack that leaves several Al Qaeda militants dead. No one would ever count these individuals among "the dead and wounded" in Afghanistan or anywhere else without clearly differentiating Al Qaeda militants from civilians. Most Americans accept our nation's right to destroy those whose avowed aim is the destruction of the United States. Nor do our media dwell on civilian casualties and describe in gruesome detail the images of children caught in the crossfire in Afghanistan. Indeed, U.S. media never showed images of children killed, maimed, or orphaned by our incursion into Iraq, when doing so would have been appropriate journalism aimed at making Americans aware of the costs of the war to Iraqi civilians.

In contrast, U.S. journalists from all the major networks and cable stations frequently show images of crying children holding onto their dead mothers in Gaza, and NPR and the BBC constantly expose their viewers and listeners to sounds of crying children and wailing women in the background of reports in Gaza. The background sound and images are clearly designed to arouse sympathy for the people who chose Hamas as their democratically elected representatives, a group that endorses techniques such as suicide bombings against civilians and has remained steadfast in its determination to "exterminate the Jews" and eliminate Israel. Aside from the fact that most nations declare war on nations or groups that explicitly call for their destruction, readers might imagine that "exterminate the Jews" is a phrase that would carry some unpleasant emotional resonance for many in Israel.

The third paragraph of the "story" illustrates a very familiar but disturbing tendency in U.S. and Western news reporting on Israeli responses to attacks from terrorists harbored (or in the case of the Palestinians and the Lebanese, democratically elected) in neighboring lands, to break with the normal narrative structure of a story. A story is generally told in chronological order, describing what happened first, then the response to what happened, followed by the outcome. Instead, when Israel responds to an attack, however large or small, reporters routinely begin with the death and destruction caused by the Israeli counterattack (which is usually the headline), followed, if at all, by a brief mention at the end, almost like a disclaimer, that the Israeli attack came in response to an attack that killed or wounded some number of people on a bus, at a disco, etc.

I realize this piece will fall on many deaf ears, having observed the brains of partisans as they read information threatening to beliefs woven together by the rock-hard mortar of emotion. Facts don't matter much to those of us with strong feelings, even when we think they do, and this is a topic that evokes strong feelings on both sides. Nor do I claim to be immune to such effects, having found myself on both sides of this issue at different points in time. But for those who have not yet decided whether the better analogy for Hamas vs. Israel is David vs. Goliath or Al Qaeda vs. the U.S. , I should be clear that I do not intend by any statement here to absolve Israel of blame where blame is due. Just as the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, the Israelis have made some very foolish decisions based on their own internal politics and the demands of their own religious extremists, such as creating settlements that could only be justified by those who heard voices from God singing "this land is our land" in Hebrew. And the timing of this war is closer to the Israeli elections than many of us find comfortable.

Perhaps the heart of the issue that leads partisans on each side to offer competing assertions about whose attacks are provoked or unprovoked is the difficulty determining precisely who ultimately owns the disputed territories claimed by both Israel and the Arabs who renamed themselves Palestinians a few decades ago (although I see no movement in the U.S. to give our land back to those we know for certain owned and occupied it before the arrival of white settlers from Europe less than 400 years ago, a far less ambiguous case). Unfortunately, the disputed land deeds are millennia old. In retrospect, perhaps it might have been much easier and more just after World War II if the U.S. and Britain had simply moved the Germans to what is now called Israel and given the land we call Germany to the remaining Jews the Nazis hadn't yet gotten around to slaughtering. If so, today we would no doubt be referring to the German-Palestinian conflict, as the people forced off their land in 1948 to make way for the creation of the state of Israel would have had to make way instead for the creation of a Middle Eastern Deutschland, and we could all feel virtuous protesting the "disproportionate response" of the Germans to Arab and Islamic terrorists launching rockets into their territory and blame the ferocity of the response on the "German character" that led to Dachau and Auschwitz.

As a parent, there is nothing more horrifying than sounds or images of dead, burnt, or orphaned children. Perhaps the next time commentators find themselves compelled to write about the "disproportionate force" used by the Israelis in response to missile attacks launched by Hamas or Hezbollah into Israeli cities and towns with increasingly sophisticated weaponry, they should ask themselves the simple question Barack Obama essentially asked months ago when questioned about his stance on the Israel-Palestinian conflict: If someone were sending bombs into your homes that could kill your children, what would you do? Unfortunately, that's now, once again, a question that can be asked on both sides of the Gaza border. It's why we need an engaged American negotiating presence in the region again after years of astonishing indifference and inaction--and why everyone, regardless of which way their brain tilts on this issue, should be excited at the prospect of President Obama and his Secretary of State (perhaps with an assist from a second Clinton with some experience in the region) making better use of Camp David again.

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation."

Comments

[MTGradwell]

So, finally, some truth about the "tens of thousands of innocent Afghani civilians dead and untold others wounded". Not entirely serious, of course. But no Afghans ever flew planes into US buildings. Afghanistan never posed any real threat. If the war was ever actually about bin Laden then it could have ended in Dec. 2001, yet here we are today. And in reference to that war phrases such as "a disproportionate attack of unprecedented magnitude", even if intended as facetious, are no less than the exact truth. So, why the sudden urge for truth-telling? Apparently, to defend a different assault directed primarily against innocent civilians. Yet two wrongs don't make a right.

Is it OK to use phosphorus shells and depleted uranium in heavily populated built-up areas, against civilians, just because the US did? Should Israel routinely assassinate elected officials, just because worldwide the US has had a similar policy? Can we justify blockades which ensure that for years huge populations go without basics such as medicine, clean water and adequate food, byt noting the US once did something similar to Iraq? Do similar considerations make it OK to break a ceasefire, then use the ensuing ineffectual counter-attack as an excuse to kill thousands? If two wrongs don't make a right, then definitely two hundred wrongs plus two hundred more don't make a right.

[Michale32086]

HAMAS never obeyed the CEASE Fire...

Missiles still flew into Israel from Gaza...

HAMAS did not release Cpl Shalit...

HAMAS did not cease weapons smuggling...

HAMAS did not cease tunneling under Israeli borders..

Michale.....

[MTGradwell]

CNN Confirms Israel Broke Ceasefire First. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
UN Relief & Works Agency Commissioner General says so too http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOFXL62zw0&feature=related

Israel admits: "No Hamas rockets were fired during ceasefire". http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c

Israel: 11,000+. Hamas: 1. Israel has about eleven thousand Palestinian prisoners, mostly in a legal limbo, and including many women and children. Sound familiar? Continuing the US analogy, the US still has 250+ held without charge in Guantanamo as well as many "black ops centers" for "rendition", only now about to be closed.

You know that Hamas did not cease weapons smuggling, how? Besides, Israel is quite openly and freely getting warplanes and tanks, DU, white phosphorus, tungsten flechette rounds etc. the horrific effects of which you can see on the internet, if you have the stomach for it. Just one Israeli bomb can take out an entire block, with more delivered firepower than all the Hamas rockets that have ever been fired, combined.

Israel has had a blockade of Gaza for 18 months, has burned the UN's emergency food and medicine stocks, and blocks almost all aid including basic necessities. The tunnels are an essential lifeline: "through them come sheep and goats, fruit and veg..." http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9hjyq2FzRBo

[Benton]

"But the syntax and style should be highly familiar to anyone who has followed recent events in the Middle East, in which Israel launched a large-scale offensive against Hamas, following 1000-plus unprovoked Hamas rocket attacks"

I have a lot of respect for Drew Westen. However, I think his own tribal allegiance is clouding his judgement.

According to the Guardian and confirmed by the Israeli government (Wednesday 5 November 2008 10.23 GMT)

"Hamas militants fired more than 35 rockets into Israel today, hours after the Israeli army killed six people in the Gaza Strip in the first major exchange of fire since a truce took effect in June.

The violence came after the Israeli army said its forces had uncovered a tunnel 250 metres inside Gaza that it said militants planned to use to abduct Israeli soldiers.

Israel launched air-strikes that killed five people and shot dead a gunman during an incursion into the enclave yesterday, saying it had done so after militants attacked soldiers who had gone to destroy the tunnel.)

[Michale32086]

@Blanchy

}}}}}
FACT - Almost no military personnel were killed. FACT - far more civilians were killed. FACT - the emotional effect on the British people (some might call it terror) had to do with the killing of the civilians. So
{{{{{

Your facts are extraneous emotionalism and are not relevant to the main point.

The only relevant aspect to the determination of terrorism is, "Was the King David Hotel a legitimate military target."

And, according to the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Courts, the answer is YES...

}}}}}
If you had a bit of intergrity you would say that YOU don't consider the attack on the KDH to have been terrorism but you can see how other people might call it that.
{{{{{

Absolutely.. I can see how someone who reacts emotionally and is completely ignorant of what terrorism is all about, would think that the KDH attack was terrorism.

But these are the same kinds of people who throw around the term "Nazi" or "Facist" and mistakenly apply it to whomever or whatever they don't like at any given moment.

So, yes.. I can see how someone who is ignorant and highly emotional would apply the term terrorism to the KDH attack.

But just because someone chooses to see it that way, does not make it so..

It's the facts that determine reality... Not hysteria and emotionalism..

Michale.....

[Blanchy]

Thanks. This has all been very informative.

Your "objective" definition of terrorism is really nothing more than a blueprint for murdering civilians while claiming that it isn't terrorism. I'll stick with my "subjective" definition because it helps to avoid the types of shenanigans that you are pulling here.

You supposedly take this absolute stance against terrorism yet any civilian who is near a military target's life isn't worth a plumb nickel. Call me skeptical at best that you truly are concerned about civilians. You simply claim to decry terrorism because what Israel CURRENTLY does doesn't fit your preferred definition of terrorism which allows you to beat up on people that have chosen or some might say have been forced to use terrorism.

As I indicated before, your attitudes on this topic which happen to PRECISELY mirror those of Israel on this topic (Who could have seen that coming) are the reason that I question whether Israel is a permanent fixture on this planet.

[Michale32086]

@Blanchy

}}}}
Your "objective" definition of terrorism is really nothing more than a blueprint for murdering civilians while claiming that it isn't terrorism. I'll stick with my "subjective" definition because it helps to avoid the types of shenanigans that you are pulling here.
}}}

TRANSLATION: I like my definition better because it allows me to spin and twist the definition so I can accuse anyone I am bigoted against of terrorism. I don't like your definition because it is completely objective and doesn't allow me to use it in a manner I want to..

}}}}}}
You supposedly take this absolute stance against terrorism yet any civilian who is near a military target's life isn't worth a plumb nickel.
}}}}}

Which is EXACTLY why the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Courts frown on combatants who use Human Shields and who place military equipment and supplies in crowded urban areas.

}}}}
You simply claim to decry terrorism because what Israel CURRENTLY does doesn't fit your preferred definition of terrorism which allows you to beat up on people that have chosen or some might say have been forced to use terrorism.
{{{{

First off, I have ALWAYS decried terrorism.

Secondly, no one is EVER "forced" to use terrorism...

Finally, NOTHING justifies terrorism...

Michale.....

[JustReading]

International law allows for occupied nations to resist their occupation. Israel, the occupier, cannot savagely bomb 1.5 million people it has caged in the world's densest concentration camp. Blockade of food, medicine is another war crime. The occupier does not have the right to set conditions for peace before ending the occupation. Occupation of a nation, enslaving its people in bantustans is the social equivalent of rape. A rape victim has the right to fight back; stop the rape. Israeli apologists always leave out the main facts.
This has nothing to do with 5-thousand years. Jewish, Christian and Muslim were living in relative peace and harmony, far better than the "civlized" nations of Europe, for centuries. No one recorded pogroms in the Levant. Zionism/occupation is the seed of trouble. Israel must end racism and treat every citizen equally. A Jewish life is just as valuble as a non-Jewish life; no more, nor less. Dehumanization of Arabs has made Israel a pariah state in the eyes of the world. Israel cannot terrorize the Palestinians into submission; they could have learned this in 100+ years, if they broke the circle of groupthink. The slippery slope is getting worse with every brutal attack. Israel was considered a utopian project in the 50s by many in the West. Most see it as the opposite now. Its massive nuclear arsenal will not save it. End this foolish hasbara. Or prepare for a rough crash landing.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10221.shtml

[peterg76]

Funny how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is constantly being compared to every type of armed struggle except an imperialist war of conquest.

[hennep]

basaically peterg76, its difficult for americians as they also suffered from the manifest destiny, its my land by the point of a gun bug thinking that exterminated most of the existing native population in what is the USofA or left them improvished on reservations (thank god you lot gamble). Stuff like that only worked when no one saw it seconds after it happened and several nation states didn't have the power to wipe out all life on this planet.

Everyone says x,y, znd z about the past but were then when we were technologically backward, human mentality has yet to catch up to our technology Globalisation made every action globally accountable, and you wonder "why do they hate us".

[Palemoon]

"The syntax and style of the "news report" above are jarring from the first sentence of the first paragraph, which uses the phrase,"

Ha! I have something more jarring than that hoax of a news story you concocted and this one appeared in the Ha'aretz newspaper. In the series entitled "A Special Place In Hell", the writer talked about the unthinkable. This having to do with his trying to convey to the Israeli's, what elected Obama was like to the US.

He said the only comparison that could be made, is to think of it as being an Arab elected President of Israel. Everyone obviously dismisses it whenever he attempts to bring it up, saying it was impossible, it would never happen, it never could happen. Period. Maybe they are right. But 40 years ago I can gaurantee that there were highly educated white men in the USA who said that there would never be a black President, that it was impossible, it would never happen and never could happen. Period.

[Michale32086]

You people (you know who you are) just don't seem to get it.

Once you forgo addressing the argument and start making personal attacks on the author, you have already lost...

Michale.....

[Blanchy]

Unless of course the author actually deserves it. I don't think that there is anything that anyone could post here that would make you change your opinions 1% no matter how well thought out the response was. I would contend that even if you thought someone was correct in something you still would never admit it.

[Michale32086]

Your contention would be wrong.... As I have amply proven time and again...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

baffy

}}}}}
Don't start pontificating about what happened in Northern Ireland. Your ignorance of the situation is already very apparent.
{{{{{

Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational counter to my argument and must, therefore, resort to immature personal attacks.

Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant..

Michale.....

[Sundialsvc4]

When a --tribal-- conflict has been festering for five thousand years (as this one has...), it bursts into ugly flame from time to time. And the smoke usually attracts the attention of perhaps-we­ll-intenti­oned (and perhaps not...) nations who imagine that their "superior military force" will either de-fuse the situation or at least "knock some sense into them."

But it just doesn't work that way. Afghan tribes will fight murderously and senselessly with other tribes UNTIL "a common enemy" appears. Then, they will unite against that "common enemy," expel it ... and go right back to their tribal squabble. The Russians found that out; so did the British and the French; and, now, so did we.

"Find another, albeit longer, route for your precious petroleum pipeline."

It is entirely true that millions of "ordinary citizens who do not give a damn" are caught-up in a tribal war, and many of them are killed by it. But you cannot save them with force.

What --might-- work is to use diplomacy. Seek to weaken the supports which persuade people to embrace those tribal animosities which so-often lead to their own suicide. Food. Shelter. Love. And, somehow, a respect (feigned or real) for their ancient nation.

Meanwhile: contain your own vulnerability to what they might do. Even though the Middle East has huge amounts of oil left, there are other ways to run an engine (and there are power sources other than an engine).

[Michale32086]

@Blanchy

}}}}}
Irrelevant? Why because you said so?
{{{{{

No, it's irrelevant to the fact that it was STILL the British Military HQ...

}}}}}
I already said that the attack was so successful in changing British opinions on staying in Palestine PRECISELY because of the killing of the civilians. I would contend that the presence of the military HQ was only there to give the attack a veneer (and thin at best) of legitimacy, but that its presence had nothing to do with its effect.
}}}}}

Irrelevant...

Military HQs are legitimate military targets..

That is the only relevant fact....

}}}}}
The terror caused by the attack was the effect. Now you say that was collateral damage yet it was the most significant aspect of the attack? Please.
{{{{{

Regardless of it's significance, the simple FACT is, the KDH was a military HQ.. That made it a legitimate military target..

Your appeal to emotionalism is irrelevant.. I deal in facts..

And the FACT is, the King David Hotel was a legitimate military target...

Michale.....

[Blanchy]

FACT - Almost no military personnel were killed. FACT - far more civilians were killed. FACT - the emotional effect on the British people (some might call it terror) had to do with the killing of the civilians. So the terrorism effects of the bombing far outweight the effect of bombing the military HQ, but I am simply supposed to COMPLETELY discount that when I analyzed the attack? That is simply preposterous. Next thing you will be saying that napalming whole city blocks is fine to take out a sniper.

If you had a bit of intergrity you would say that YOU don't consider the attack on the KDH to have been terrorism but you can see how other people might call it that. You might say that the attack was unfortunate and possibly shouldn't have taken place but that it in no way justifies terrorism against Israel until the end of time.

Of course you will never do that because you are part of the "Israel can do no wrong crowd".

[Michale32086]

@rizvisa1

}}}}}
Cage is some thing that is enclosed. When you cannot leave by sky, sea or land, then it is a cage. You can call it an enclosure or what ever you want.
{{{{{

Using this reasoning, your planet Earth is a "cage".

}}}}
If a police want to capture or kill a wanted man, and it start firing left and right than it is not ok.
{{{{

Agreed.. But you are comparing apples and alligators...

}}}}
Dropping a big bomb on top of a building is targeting innocent.
{{{{

Not if the building is a legitimate military target...

}}}}}
What about that recent killing of daughter of peace activist.
{{{{{

Cite??

Michale......

[rizvisa1]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/18/gaza-doctor.html

Well if you go by that then whole universe is a cage. I am pretty sure as a smart person you did realize that I was talking about relative size, number of people, where to hide, how to go do hiding place etc

During this conflict Israeli claim of legitimate target has been any thing and every thing.

Again once more I would say, two wrongs dont make one right.

[Michale32086]

Agreed.. But, as I have proven, there are many areas HAMAS can place their weapons that would actually make them MORE efficient. And, incidentally save innocent civilian lives...

}}}}}
During this conflict Israeli claim of legitimate target has been any thing and every thing
{{{{{

Do you have any evidence to support this claim???

}}}}}
Again once more I would say, two wrongs dont make one right.
{{{{{

True, but the more applicable mantra here is that NOTHING justifies terrorism.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

"Militants shot from the house, the Israeli said, repeating media reports that the home was shelled after someone fired at troops from nearby.

Abu al-Aish said no one was there but his family, and that he would have personally thrown out any militants."

So, either a mistake was made or militants were firing from the house..

If it was a mistake, then that is a tragedy... If militants were firing from the house, then it was a legitimate target..

Either way, the fault and responsibility lies completely with HAMAS...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@rizvisa1

}}}}
Military cannot ever defeat Hamas. You can never defeat idea with brute force. Hate breeds hate. Violence breeds violence.
{{{{

Irish Republican Army....

Ku Klux Klan......

GRAPO.....

Just a few of the many terrorist organizations that have been crushed or rendered impotent by militant means..

Michale......

Michale.......

[rizvisa1]

IRA was not defeated by might. There were talks that lead to peace.
KKK: It was not defeated by might either. The idea lost steam, but still there are KKK clans
GRAPO: Also low level of popular support

Violence breeds violence and hate breeds hate. For how many years have Israel trying to kill off PLO and then they had to talk to them. Hamas cannot be killed so easily either. Talk is only hope for Israel. Time is not on its side, unless it further define its citizenship rights.

Personally I dont think two state solution is possible, a sort of federation is best hope for peace.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
IRA was not defeated by might. There were talks that lead to peace.
{{{{

It was systematic attacks by the SAS and infiltrations by MI6 that forced the IRA to the table. The British gave the IRA two choices.. Negotiate or die. The IRA choose wisely and, as such is no longer a terrorist threat.

The same manner, albeit less intense, negated the KKK as a terrorist organization, although it still has the label..

You may be right about the solution.

I simply maintain that the terrorism must stop..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Blanchy

}}}}
And here is a definition of terrorism for you. One of about a million of course. The King David bombing fits nicely.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
}}}}}

I have already proven that this definition is wrong because it is subjective.

When the definition refers to "unlawful use of force", who's laws does the definition refer to? Using this definition, an act might be terrorism in one country but not terrorism in another country.

Because it is SUBJECTIVE and can be applied subjectively on a whim, it is meaningless..

But, at least you provided a definition. That is to your credit. You are one of only a handful that could even do that...

Michale....

[Blanchy]

This is pointless. You can't even admit that government officials are civilians because if you were to do that, then the King David bombing would indeed be terrorism even by your definition. As you well know definitions of terrorism are always self-serving anyway. By the US definition of terrorism we as a nation cannot commit terrorism even if we were dragging children out of homes and shooting them to make an example to the population.

[Michale32086]

Government officials, as leaders are not considered "innocent civilians" and are, therefore legitimate military targets.

It says it in black and white that the KDH housed the British MILITARY HQ..

Military Headquarters, no matter WHERE they are situated, are legitimate military targets..

This isn't Rocket Science here....

}}}}}
As you well know definitions of terrorism are always self-serving anyway.
{{{{{{

All I am asking is that you prove it. You made a claim about the definition I go by and I am asking you to back it up with facts..

Why can't you do this??

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@rizvisa1

}}}}
Gaza is most densely populated area in the world.
{{{{{

This is wrong...

With approx. 4200 persons per sq km, Gaza is the SIXTH most densely populated area in the world. THE most densely populated area of the planet is Macau with over 18,000 persons per sq km...

}}}}
So Pretty much under that definition yes every thing is legitimate target.
{{{{

Not entirely accurate.. Although some could logically make that claim, I wouldn't...

}}}}
As for not killing innocent people, well innocent people are dying. If Hamas is to be faulted, so is Israel.
}}}}}}

A military target remains a legitimate military target, even if it is located in a civilian area.
"Civilians do not enjoy absolute immunity. Their presence will not render military objects immune from attack for the mere reason that it is impossible to bombard them without causing injury to the non-combatants."
Oppenheim's 'International Law'

Terrorist organizations that hide behind civilians bear the primary responsibility for civilian casualties.
"Should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent placing innocent civilians at risk."
Dinstein,'Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict'

}}}}}}
Hamas is neither a country nor a force that can be even compared against them
{{{{{{

Then maybe it would behoove HAMAS to quit committing terrorism against Israel, eh???

Michale.....

[rizvisa1]

DId Israel did allow the civilian population to leave the war zone ? So saying the Hamas was hiding behing civilians and we did all we could to minimize innocent life is a very stretch. If you ask a Hamas, they would say that we are not terrorist we are freedom fighters. When innocent life is lost and not all that could be done to prevent it does not happen, in my eyes it is terrorism and murder. Both Hamas and Israel are guilty of that.

Two wrongs dont make a right. Israel is a country while hamas is not. Because of that responsibilities are there (it is not to say that there are none on Hamas side). In an analogy, both child and adult are human and both have some responsibility but the nature and amount varies. So you are comparing apples and oranges. When USA was attacking Fulljah, US army allowed civilians to leave the area. US tried to minimize the civilian casualty.

what is your definition of terrorism as you have been dropping this term left and right. First you need to defined what you called terrorism, I just hope it is not that "any thing that is done against Israel is terrorism,

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
So saying the Hamas was hiding behing civilians and we did all we could to minimize innocent life is a very stretch.
{{{{{

Not really.. It was well documented that HAMAS removed their uniforms and don'ed civilian attire. This is considered a war crime by the Geneva Conventions.

}}}}
US tried to minimize the civilian casualty.
{{{{{

And Israel did to:

Israel will emphasize that it acted in self-defense in Gaza and expended great efforts in warning residents that their homes were about to be targeted and ordering them to vacate them. Israel used text messages, dropped flyers from the air and made a quarter of a million telephone calls to warn Gaza residents, as well as taking over and broadcasting warnings on Palestinian radio stations. Its defense will also provide evidence of how Hamas turned houses, schools, mosques and welfare institutions into weapons warehouses and booby-trapped them, explaining that they were attacked because they were legitimate military targets.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056677.html

}}}}}
First you need to defined what you called terrorism, I just hope it is not that "any thing that is done against Israel is terrorism,
{{{{{

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."

I look forward to discussing this definition with you..

Michale....

[Michale32086]

@Blanchy

}}}}}
The original poster was using an allegory. Sorry this went over your head
{{{{{

And I simply pointed out the illogic of his actions.....

Sorry if that went over YOUR head...

Michale.....