You have an over-active imagination, csteele. I edited the list because there’s a 350-word limit (and I’d already had to wait an hour to post as it was). I also omitted the nationalities, but you don’t mention that there were two US citizens listed. As for there being soldiers on the bus, they weren’t on duty, it was a civilian bus, and their lives are of no less value because they were soldiers. Not to me, at least!

You’ve proven my point in your response. The fact that you think a defence force response to an attack violating the national sovereignty of Israel (however heavy-handed it may or may not have been) is comparable to a suicide bombing by a terrorist organisation demonstrates your application of moral equivalence. As for the incident itself, you cite an out-dated and disputed Wiki article. And it’s not about numbers or ratios, it’s about what’s right and wrong. I believe the Allies killed over ten thousand French civilians when they liberated France from the Nazis, but that wasn’t wrong. Conversely, the Nazis only executed one civilian in Jersey during WWII, a Frenchman who’d landed there trying to sail to England, but that was wrong. Should the Allies be condemned because they killed thousands but the Nazis excused because they killed only one?! As for Hamas, you have ignored my point. Hamas has tainted itself by carrying out and claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks. They have embraced the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians as their modus operandi. Hamas call the Al-Fakhura incident a “holocaust” while in the same breath denying that the Holocaust of 6 million Jews ever happened. In contrast, the IDF have had numerous investigations, issued criminal indictments against its own soldiers, and also punished disciplinary offences.

I did not intend to reply, but you said you “need to be told” and I am a softie at heart. Perhaps you should think about your last paragraph a little more. Can you imagine Hamas, who deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel, ever remembering Jews as part of their tradition?

Pax.

Montgomery, the crux of your position appears to be that it is OK for the Israeli soldiers to kill Palestinian civilians but it is not Ok for Palestinian fighters to kill Israelis, whether they be soldiers or civilians, because the Palestinians are terrorists.

Why is it so much worse to be killed by a suicide bomb than by a helicopter gun ship?
Do you think that the families of the 1500 people (400 of them children) killed in Cast Lead grieve less because their loved ones were killed by soldiers? Or are Palestinians not capable of grief?

And don't go comparing it with the British killing Frenchmen during WWII. The British were driving out an occupying force. The Israelis are the occupying force.

That’s where I disagree with you, Mr Jones. I do not believe Israel is an occupying force. In fact, if anyone is occupying land they shouldn’t, it’s the Palestinians. After all, Palestinians have only existed since 1967 and are a political construct. I quote Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."
You can read more at http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm
And please don’t put words into my mouth. I never said it was okay for Israelis to kill civilians, and the Israelis clearly don’t think so either, otherwise why would they put their own soldiers on trial for war crimes and punish soldiers for failing to avoid unnecessary risks to Palestinian civilians? But you are quite right in saying that I don’t think it’s okay for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians and that the Palestinians are responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel. In fact, I see in the news that they’re at it again….
But I see from your previous comments that you don’t actually think about what anyone else has said but simply go off on rants, so I won’t waste any time trying to convince you that terrorism is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator or victims. I just wanted to correct your misleading summary of my position.

It's only Israeli propagandists claim there's no occupation in the non-Israeli UN mandate of the mid East.

There's fundamental flaw in your pretense the Palestinians don't exist.

'... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

Explain who are these semetic people that existed in Palestine when the UN mandated and created the non-secular state of Israel in 1948?

The following quotes show you don't believe the Palestinians don't exist.

You say

'After all, Palestinians have only existed since 1967 and are a political construct. '

and in the same post,

' I don’t think it’s okay for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians and that the Palestinians are responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel.'

Now given that Israelis were acknowledged as killing Palestinians and Palestinians of killing Israelis prior to 1967 ... well you should have the jist of the stupidity of your contradictory claims.

Just to reinforce the obvious anomoly here is a few references showing acknowledgement of Palestinians by Israeli pre 1967.

1.

'The Palestinians must learn that they will pay a high price for Israeli lives.'

A conversation between David Ben-Gurion and Ariel Sharon.1953

2. Formation of Unit 101, 1953

'Unit 101 was an Israeli special operations unit founded and led by Ariel Sharon on orders from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in August 1953. It was created to retaliate against a spate of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians.'

3. Qibya 1953,

'The widely condemned attack on Qibya made the Israeli leadership forbid the IDF to directly target innocent civilians in the future.'
(Seems such actions forbidden by that edict has gone now ... too)

That these non-Israels now lay claim to calling themselves Palestinians, is quite legitimate and acceptable, regardless of their previously imposed citizenship status, especially in light of the fact non-semetic immigrants from Eastern Europe, lay claim to being of the Jewish religious part of the semetic race?

Dear Montgomery,

 You posted; "I do not believe Israel is an occupying force. In fact, if anyone is occupying land they shouldn’t, it’s the Palestinians." 

Since I rarely see this kind of statement from anyone other than Jewish folk I'm going to make that assumption about you and unless I am informed to the contrary please permit me to adjust my argument accordingly.

I was going to ask if you could regard any of those who are fighting to end the occupation as freedom fighters but it is rather moot since you don't believe there isn't an occupation. Doesn't this rather conveniently allow you to label anyone who responds with arms against arms as a terrorist? See you do have a conscience otherwise you wouldn't be making such an effort to circumvent it, or is just my overactive imagination playing up again? 

Do you see any anything incongruous about claiming the other side where so bad because of a refusal to recognize the Jewish State of Israel while in the same breath denying the very existence of the Palestinian people. 

You then said; "Hamas call the Al-Fakhura incident a “holocaust” while in the same breath denying that the Holocaust of 6 million Jews ever happened."

May I point out that in the same breath you have cast doubts over the validity of the massacre of their own people.

Please see the UN report on the Gaza conflict. The incident is examined from page 131.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm

While I don't expect you to radically change your views, (who does at our age?), I would hope in quieter periods of reflection you will understand why reasonable and rational people, without a stake in this fight, see the absolute intransigence of both sides and can give fulsome support to neither.

Oops! The dangers of posting by phone. The 'isn't' should be an 'is' and the 'where' a 'were'. Sorry.