Actually, Marilyn, I don't support the war on Iraq. Interesting that your attempts to argue by analogy actually involve setting up straw men.

I know none of this will budge you an iota, but I'll have a shot at explaining myself more simply. Tell me if this remains too complex.

Hamas are terrorists. They are terrorists because they send young men and women laden down with bombs to blow up civilian targets. That is called terrorism. (Arguing that the military of Israel, or Australia, or anyone else is also terrosist is actually irrelevant, insofar as classifying Hamas goes)

Democratic elections are about determining, as a polity, the nature of those who represent you. Palestine, as a Polity, has chosen to be represented by Hamas.

Consequently, the Palestinians have chosen to be led and represented by a terrorist organisation.

If you can tell me where the logic is wrong here, I will listen.

Anth

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180072006

Good for you Yuyu, now here is the initial amnesty International report on the scale of destruction against Lebanon this time around.

While Israel whine about 41 civilians being killed (which is terrible) and a few thousand mickey mouse Katushyas actually hitting something ocassionally try looking at what Israel did to Lebanon.

7,000 air bombardments, 2,500 sea bombardments, cluster bombs and all sorts of other weapons, thousands of homes demolished and so on.

Now tell me how often Lebanon have built homes on Israeli land - do a graphic similar to the one for the Palestinians and we can all see for ourselves the determination to keep a Jewish state.

None of us argue with the right to do that. What we argue with is the non-right of Israel to constantly kill, bomb and persecute her neighbours. Have a look at the scale of horror inflicted on people in Lebanon in a war that Israel planned months earlier.

And the two soldiers who were supposed to have been kidnapped? Who knows except according to Haaretz Israel are now negotiating their release.

What a tragedy this has all been and Israel are the biggest losers no matter how clever they think they were.

Interestingly millions of Australians who once agreed with your position no longer do.

wobbles: I was talking about a world post-oil where alternative energy sources (eg. biodiesel or ethanol) were used. The Middle East would be quite irrelevant in such a scenario, and so what China, India or Russia (or anyone else) did or didn't do in the Middle East would be irrelevant because without oil, the Middle East would be a pretty insignificant region. Fertile regions would be jostled over for fuel, and many western nations (eg. U.S., Canada, Australia, Brazil) would probably be self-sufficient for fuel.

(Actually, pipelines from Russia don't go through the Middle East. They can go into the Black or Caspian Seas, Iran or central Asia. None of these is in the Middle East).

What exactly would an independent U.N. look like? In order to get any of the major players on board, they have to have some sort of special rights above and beyond everyone else or they won't be in it. So it's a case of whether they're officially sanctioned rogue states or not, and let's not forget that whilst the U.S. certainly does see itself to some extent as the world policeman, a lot who complain about that (ie. Europe) are the first to demand the U.S. step in to solve problems they can't or won't (ie. WW1, WW2, The Cold War, Yugoslavia). The whole situation is very complex.

Anyhow, the reason there used to be some sort of check on the U.S.A. had nothing much to do with the U.N., but more to do with the fact that there was another superpower in the U.S.S.R. One day, America may be checked (or eclipsed) by China for instance, but the U.N. is, and always will be, irrelevant at best (and quite possibly just a major pain in the backside to everyone concerned.

“Terrorism is the systematic use or threatened use of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious, or ideological change.[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong.” Wikipedia.
Anth, how does this differ from what Israel, the USA and other religiously driven countries are doing around the world. Being an apologies for any monotheistic faction, doesn't alter the facts your all one and the same. Psychological, Social, moral, cultural, physical and spiritual terrorists.

Israel's establishment was by terrorist acts, nothing has changed. Kidnapping elected members of the government of any other nation, is the act of terrorists. Israel's current invasion was nothing less than an act of terror,. “Terror is a pronounced state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger “. You don't believe the people of Beirut, Gaza, or greater Lebanon have not felt terrorised, when occupying zionists invade, kill people, destroy buildings and kidnap, isn't a act of terror.

But of course they believe in the wrong god, and the infantile righteous, I want and I'll kill to get it mob, carry on with heads held high as they grovel in the slaughter they are committing around the world in the name of Yahweh..

Anth, this is the beginning of the end for the followers of Yahweh, clutch to the straw man god, and you'll sink with it into a more depraved state and outcomes.

I don’t think the problem has to be solved with deterrence. The instigators are on many levels, Israel and the US. Both want a reason to get their way into the Middle East, and what better reason to destroy the Hezbollah and rid the world of extremists. The point raised in some posts before that bombing Lebanon, and killing some terrorists, makes way for a civilian to become another terrorist is quite true, and unnecessary forms of conflict will raise risks of extremism in other countries, even the West. There is an image we do not see often is it, the western terrorist. Seems a bit farfetched doesn’t it? Well it is quite possible, if people are drawn to their limits worldwide. This conflict may escalate or it may not, but it certainly has potential to bring global conflict and war. Death that is not needed and can be avoided. My point of argument is this; we focus on the wrong areas to stop this problem of extremist and terrorism

Boaz David

Did you read the election manifesto of Hamas?

I have been unable to find it but it did drop the requirement for the desrtruction of the State of Israel.

I found this report from a UK paper.

'Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday January 12, 2006
The Guardian

Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1684472,00.html

From this your rant about the Hamas charter might be correct but the policy presented, in it's election manifesto, to the Palestinian people contradicts your allegation.

In democracies candidates are elected on their policy not their party manifesto. Hamas would be answerable to the electorate at the next election had they not adhered to their manifesto. They are not answerable for their Party Charter.

You like all Israeli mouthpieces and the Western Media overlooked this basic tenet of democracy. You've all attacked the Palestinians for electing Hamas. A modicum of understanding of true democracy and decency would have seen the acceptance of the Palestinians choice. Hamas would have changed just as the PLO had under the corrupt arafat.

The Israeli's cannot afford to have peace with Palestine or their neighbours. That would limit their expansion.

It was also reported Hamas was leaning to or had accepted the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

It called for the following;

'...for the state of Israel to withdraw its forces from all the Occupied Territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees. In exchange the Arab states affirmed that they would recognize the state of Israel, consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and establish "normal relations" with Israel.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

That propasal hasn 't been accepted by Israel.

Why not?

That is exactly what occurred between Jordan, Egypt and Israel. Hamas originally was a branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, that still exists in Egypt today.

You might read this but your's and Israel's ears are closed to truth.