Loudmouth,

"If Hamas keeps firing rockets into Israel, then it is quite legal - and necessary - for Israel to retaliate. When Israel offers a cease-fire, and Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel, then the retaliation must continue.

Hamas has been doing this for many years now, and seems to have learnt the mathematics of it, calibrating its aggression, calculating how much retaliation it can expect in return, until the people of Gaza have enough of it all. And around we go."

Perhaps you might read this:

"Israel has broken my heart: I’m a rabbi in mourning for a Judaism being murdered by Israel"

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/04/israel_has_broken_my_heart_i%E2%80%99m_a_rabbi_in_mourning_for_a_judaism_being_murdered_by_israel/

"I always told myself that the dominant humanity of the Jewish people and the compassionate strain within Torah would reassert itself once Israel felt secure.

That belief began to wane in the past eight years when Israel, faced with a Palestinian Authority that promoted nonviolence and sought reconciliation and peace, ignored the Saudi Arabian-led peace initiative that would have granted Israel the recognition that it had long sought, an end to hostilities, and a recognized place in the Middle East, refused to stop its expansion of settlements in the West Bank and imposed an economically crushing blockade on Gaza. Even Hamas, whose hateful charter called for Israel’s destruction, had decided to accept the reality of Israel’s existence, and while unable to embrace its “right” to exist, nevertheless agreed to reconcile with the Palestinian Authority and in that context live within the terms that the PA would negotiate with Israel.

Yet far from embracing this new possibility for peace, the Israeli government used that as its reason to break off the peace negotiations..."

"But it is the brutality of that assault that finally has broken me into tears and heartbreak...."

Ima and markjohnconley:

Illegal blockade? Not according to the UN 2011 Palmer report:

"The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal"

You might hold a personal opinion that the blockade is not legal, but that's as far as it goes.

And Mark, the Israeli government does not object to the lifting of the blockade, as long as it includes the demilitarisation of Gaza. I guess they got tired of having rockets raining down on them, not really sure why.

Ima:

You bring the example of your fantasy Christian Western society again, and the efforts to rebuild the cities and economies from the destruction inflicted on the Axis powers during WW2. Can I remind you once again that when Israel left Gaza in 2005, it left substantial infrastructure behind to assist Gaza to rebuild its economy. There was no revenge inflicted on Gaza by Israel, no blockade, no occupation and no retribution. How did this experiment turn out? The philosophy you promote has been tried and failed miserably.

“We didn't exact retributions. We learned that lesson after the first war. We learn lessons and try not repeat mistakes”

If memory serves there was a second world war after the first, disproving your theory again.
And let’s be realistic. Your notions of forgiveness and Christian philosophies belong in the bible or in poetry, not in international relations. Countries act on national interest, nothing else. This has always been the case and always will be.

Arjay:

You never fail to entertain. ISIS was created by Israel? I must have missed that priceless piece of information. Was it in the SMH this morning?

Regarding your theory about Khazars and the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs prior to 1936: please google the violent Arab riots of 1921 and 1929. The fascinating theory about the mass conversion of Khazars to Judaism has already been debunked. And as for the alleged control the Rothschilds hold over the IMF, World Bank, our governments, fast food joints and global warming – was this something they decided on during the last Elders of Zion meeting?

Dear Avw,

Quote;

(Reuters) - Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, a panel of human rights experts reporting to a U.N. body said on Tuesday, disputing a conclusion reached by a separate U.N. probe into Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.

A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."

End quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913

Dear SR:

The "so-called" Palmer report was an official UN report. No doubt there are some "so-called" human rights experts who disagree with it (lead by Richard Falk, not surprisingly), just like other such experts agree with it. So what?

As for your previous comment, "...Hamas rejected a ceasefire that did not include negotiations on ending the crippling and illegal blockading...":
Leaving aside your rejection of the UN support regarding the legality of the blockade, your statement is incorrect. Hamas rejected the ceasefire not because it did not include negotiations on the ending the blockade. According to Israeli negotiators the blockade can be lifted as soon as Hamas agree for Gaza to be demilitarised. It is demilitarisation that Hamas refuse to accept, even if the blockade is lifted in return. The reason is obvious: they wish to prolong the violence. This is not some benevolent organisation we are dealing with here. They have zero regards for Israeli civilians or their own. By taking their weapons and arsenal of terror away from them you take away their reason for existence. Think ISIS, or Boko Haram, as examples.

You further quote Gregory Baskin in saying that Hamas formed a government with Fatah. This, unfortunately, changes nothing. Have they changed their charter? Have they renounced their stated ambition to eliminate Israel?

Dear Avw,

Sorry mate but you really should resist the urge to be a conniving young fellow. You have challenged references to the 'illegal blockade' with the Palmer Report which clearly makes a distinction between the land and air blockade and the naval one.

“The naval blockade is often discussed in tandem with the Israeli restrictions on the land crossings to Gaza. However, in the Panel’s view, these are in fact two distinct concepts which require different treatment and analysis.”

And

“We therefore treat the naval blockade as separate and distinct from the controls at the land crossings. … the legal elements of the naval blockade are analyzed on their own.”

So its conclusion regarding the blockade of Gaza?

“The Panel underlines the reaffirmation by the Quartet on 21 June 2010, shortly
after the flotilla incident, that the situation in Gaza, including the humanitarian and
human rights situation of the civilian population, was unsustainable, unacceptable and not
in the interests of any of those concerned. That appears also to be a widespread view in
the international community. It is clear that the restrictions Israel has placed on goods
and persons entering and leaving Gaza via the land crossings continue to be a significant
cause of that situation.”

Still the Palmer Report was fraught and Falk was perfectly correct in challenging the notion that the naval blockade can be separated from the rest of the land and air blockade enforced by Israel.

You have been rather naughty haven't you.

Cont..

LEGO,

'The RAF and US Fifth Air force killed far more German civilians than the Luftwaffe killed British civilians.

Which side was therefore evil? The western democracies or the Nazis?'

The words 'moral' and 'simpleton' come to mind.

Jonathon,

'By your logic Susan, Churchill was in the wrong when he flattened Dresden in February 1945 with up to 25,000 German civilians killed.'

The Germans had well and truly lost the war by February 1945. Most fair minded people would agree that the bombing of Dresden was unnecessary and didn't speed up the end of the war at all.

'And Truman was wrong when in August 1945 he ordered the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which pulverised 135,000 Japanese. These two men saved more Allied lives with their actions. And brought forward the end of the war.'

Oh, I get it. So Israel starts a war to kill Palestinian civilians so they can finish the war more quickly to save lives. That's logical. Why don't you just use a nuclear bomb too?

Next you'll tell us Hamas fighters are the Wehrmacht and the firecrackers they send over are by Wernher von Braun. Truth is the V1s and V2 used by the nazis were probably a fair bit more sophisticated than the missiles used by Hamas some 70 year later.

To paraphrase Churchill, you guys certainly do think differently.