Cont..

You assert;

“No rockets are fired at Israel from West Bank towns, and what a surprise, there are no Israeli strikes on any West Bank towns either.” No, instead a record amount of their territory is stolen from them while the Gazans did not lose a metre.

Now this is where I get really pissed because of this crap from you;

“You fully embrace terror acts and support them wholeheartedly, while I detest them.”

Mate, what a truly miserable misrepresentation of my point. I condemned both the planting of a bomb in a night club as well as the dropping of a bomb on a Hamas member's house that kills the majority of his family. I called both acts terrorism which they most certainly are. You sir defended the second as a legitimate act therefore you sir are the defender of terrorism, of the obliteration of families, of the slaughter of civilians. How much terrorism was inflicted by Hamas on the Israeli population compared to that inflicted by the IDF? There is absolutely no doubt for most thinking people who the true terrorists were in the latest conflict.

Next you wrote this;

“Once again, you fail to see the simple relationship between cause and effect. The arrests of Hamas members in the West Bank was in response to the Hamas kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli teenagers. Are you suggesting that Israel should have allowed the perpetrators to get away with it – just because they are members of your favourite organisation?”

Cont..

Cont..

It appears that an Hamas affiliated group was responsible for the killing of the Israeli teenagers. The act happen a week after the autopsy results on the deaths of the West Bank Palestinian teenagers killed on Nakba Day were released showing that they had been shot with live ammunition not the rubber bullets as claimed by the IDF. While I most certainly don't agree with their method, to use your own words 'Are you suggesting that they should have allowed the perpetrators to get away with it?'
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Autopsy-finds-live-fire-killed-Palestinian-teen-during-Nakba-Day-clashes-356036

Or is violent reaction illegitimate just when Palestinian teenagers are killed?

The rest of your post is mostly mantra although this was particularly so;

“It is the Islamic fanaticism that is the real cancer not only in the Middle East, but the entire world. The sooner we all realise the importance of removing this cancer from the world the better off we would all be.”

Here is a truer version;

'It is Israeli settler fanaticism that is the real cancer not only in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but the entire world. The sooner we all realise the importance of removing this cancer from the world the better off we would all be

All that from a Terrorist sympathizer.

Do Hamas moslems lie? Hmmm... Let's see.

The Hamas dead in Gaza. Propaganda at its finest! Photo op gone wrong. The dead are moving when they think the camera is off.

http://moonbattery.com/?p=49247
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfCJ23umcBI

It's a miracle!

Dear SR:

The point you are trying to make is the following:

“A compliant, demilitarised Gaza will not process the peace process one iota”

In other words, you would have us believe that if we demilitarise Gaza – remove the weapons and arsenal of terror – thereby eliminating the trigger for armed conflicts - it will not advance peace. By the same token, why do we bother with the reduction of nuclear warheads in the world? Why don’t we encourage all nuclear nations to increase their armaments as much as they like? According to your logic, this should not harm the cause of world peace one iota, and we should all feel that much safer.
Your ridiculous assertion makes no sense, and no land appropriation or any other conceivable fact about this conflict will make it any more palatable.

But it gets worse. You then continue to state

“Hamas would be mad to give up its weapons as they most certainly have a right to defend themselves plus they are the only thing that keeps Israel at the table”

Two wrong statements in the one sentence, unfortunately in this case two wrongs don’t make a right. Hamas are not defending themselves with their weapons, they are using it to attack civilians. And it is certainly not keeping Israel at the table, if anything it’s the reason for breaking up any negotiations.

I note that you still refuse to even acknowledge the slaughtering of Gaza citizens at the hands of Hamas thugs, via summary street executions of so-called “collaborators” or anyone who opposes them, by using their own civilians as human shields, or the occasional terror rocket that happens to fall on Gaza or West Bank neighbourhoods. They continue their indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli towns in the full knowledge that their criminal acts will eventually invite retaliation. I have asked you before, but received no reply: Can you name any other country on this planet that would have put up with a fanatic enemy sworn to its destruction lobbing daily rockets onto its territory, without retaliating to such attacks?

Cont-->

-->Cont

“It is not Israeli land to 'give' to anyone, it is Palestinian territory…”

Not yet it isn’t. If anything it’s ex-Jordanian/Egyptian territory. It never belonged to an entity called Palestine. It’s currently a territory in dispute, pending an agreement on the establishment and exact borders of a new Palestinian state. Until such a state is established, it is not Palestinian territory.

“This next piece from you does you little credit…Please refrain from misrepresenting my points…”

Can you explain how I misrepresented your point? You present both side of the argument – Hamas did and did not take control of Gaza by violent means. How did I misrepresent your point in any way? Your post is ambiguous at best, if not purposely misleading.
You should try to avoid being misleading and ambiguous, or better still, decide on your position rather than presenting both alternatives.

“Why on earth would they [Hamas] have complied [with the president’s call]?”

Because, my dear SR, according to Palestinian political structure, the president is the commander-in-chief of all armed forces. They are therefore required to comply with his call, even if, God forbid, it goes against your wishes.

Your re-writing of my paragraph is again nothing but a clumsy attempt at distorting reality, not to mention a lack of originality. You know perfectly well that the Israeli raids are in response to Palestinian rockets, not the other way around.
Question: Why are there no Israeli air raids on the West Bank? Let me help you with the answer – it’s because the Palestinians in the West Bank do not launch rockets into Israel.
Another question: Why do we have long periods when there are no Israeli raids on Gaza, yet there is no letup in the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel? What attacks are those rockets responding to when there are no attacks? Let me help you again because I know you’ll have difficulty answering this correctly: the rockets are not responding to anything. They are simply attacking Israeli civilians as per the policy embedded in the Hamas charter. It’s really that simple.

Cont-->

-->Cont

“Now this is where I get really pissed because of this crap from you…”

I know what you mean. I would also get really pissed off if I woke up one day to find that I actually support terrorism. Making such a discovery about yourself is guaranteed to ruin anyone’s day.
You and I have had a long discussion about your justification of terrorist acts. According to you, terror acts are justified, even though they are deliberately targeting civilians, because there is a possibility that a member of the enemy armed forces might, by chance, be hit in addition to all other civilian casualties. That, according to you, is acceptable collateral damage. Make no mistakes about it: by justifying and legitimising terror acts as you do repeatedly, you ARE supporting them. There can be no justification for terrorist acts targeting civilians, no matter how hard you try, or how much you hate the victims of those terror acts.

Let’s clear all the nonsense and summarise what you consider to be the more legitimate action:

Cont-->