Any rational person whom is looking into the motives of a government would always consider the opinions of the senior adviser of the head of government who committed the certain actions whose motives are being investigated.

Oops.

Not at all, Hamas did indeed cease firing rockets; I also see that you did not challenge the fact that Israel was the main group which violated the truce.

A siege by definition involves serious warfare and inflicts far more suffering than any blockade.

A siege affects just a city, a blockade affects an entire nation therefore it affects a greater number of people and causes a greater amount of suffering.

In this case, there is no blockade. There is another border and supplies are let in. Sorry about that.

I’m afraid that you will have to look up the meaning of blockade, a blockade doesn’t necessarily mean the complete prevention of supplies coming through, it means the complete or partial prevention of supplies, the Israelis are partially preventing supplies from coming through and are therefore enforcing a blockade, according to various human rights groups they are doing it to such a degree that it is an illegal act.

This is nonsense, when arms from gaza are explicitly aimed at damaging health and well-being of Israelis. You’re throwing around the war crimes charge as liberally as the UNHRC

Any action that targets civilians is a war crime

But they do shatter the notion of an Israeli-only blockade.

I never claimed that it was an Israeli only blockade; however I do see that you are calling it a blockade now.

No thanks. Listing the ex-PM, ex-FM, DM, certainly trumps your one guy.

Actually it doesn’t, he is in charge of intelligence, he finds out what the motives of Israel’s enemies are, the prime ministers then come to him for information, he gave it but they ignored it, now I’ll ask you again, please list 100 individuals of equal or greater authority in deciding the motives of Hamas

I could just as easily say it’s you having the hissy fit

The day that I start typing in caps lock you may.

but you don’t sound particularly “pro Israeli”

To me you also don’t sound pro-Israeli, you sound pro-likudnik, which I’m afraid these days is mutually exclusive

You seem to be the one jumping to drastic conclusions, not me.

Actually I’m not, my previous comments are exactly the types of comments and opinions that you would find often in the Israeli press and media, yet you jumped to the conclusion that I was anti-Israeli and therefore opposed to the state of Israel, and if you are opposed to something you have negative feelings such as hatred towards it.

However i am not anti-israeli and only wish the best for it and believe that when Israel commits war crimes or chooses to commit unnecessary violent options it is not just hurting its victims but also itself.

1-Credible observers are those who give to the best of their abilities an unbiased opinion and don’t with-hold relevant information, such as the information about Sharon’s senior adviser.–I see, you get to decide who is unbiased AND who is credible. Must be nice. Sorry, though, not buying.

Calling you an “anti-Israel type” is hardly the same thing as “hate speech,” no matter how much you may want it to be so. You seem to be the one jumping to drastic conclusions, not me.

“actually a “ceasefire” actually means all fire ceases”
Actually, they didnt. As you yourself admit in the very next sentence: See: “Perhaps you are optically challenged, i wrote quite clearly above that both sides violated aspects of the cease-fire agreement, however Israel was the main offender due to its greater number of breaches as well as the severity of them.”
Oops.

A blockade is indeed worse, as stated above it affects an entire nation, not just a single city, therefore the number of people suffering is higher.– Just utter nonsense. A siege by definition involves serious warfare and inflicts far more suffering than any blockade. In this case, there is no blockade. There is another border and supplies are let in. Sorry about that.

“I’d be loathe to sign another ersatz “ceasefire” again too.”
So you’re against ceasefires, what a shame.
I’m against ersatz ceasefires, yes. I see you have no problem with them.

“Israel is somehow obligated to keep gazans fit and healthy to Oxfam’s standards when their govt displays nothing but unrelenting hostility”

As stated before Hamas was open to start a ceasefire, second of all Israel is required under international law not to damage the health and well-being of the people of Gaza, doing so is a war crime. — This is nonsense, when arms from gaza are explicitly aimed at damaging health and well-being of Israelis. You’re throwing around the war crimes charge as liberally as the UNHRC

“and as if there weren’t a border with egypt from which the supposed “minimum needs” not being met from the Israeli border could be met.”

Two wrongs do not make a right.

But they do shatter the notion of an Israeli-only blockade.

“yes, the usual tactic, find one quote from one conversation and conflate that into a certainty,”

I see that you are not disputing it. I don’t have to dispute it. Many reputable individuals inside and outside Israel have refuted it well enough for me. I should mention that simply quoting a single individual hardly qualifies as proof of anything, particularly in complicated conflicts like I/P. But hey, if you like your simplistic worldview, stay with it by all means.

“well I don’t have time to list 100,”
Please make the time; you are after all the one who said he could find 100 people, so please name them.
No thanks. Listing the ex-PM, ex-FM, DM, certainly trumps your one guy.
“And by all means, call me princess more.”
If you insist on getting into hissy fits ill have no choice but to do so.

If we must play this little game, I could just as easily say it’s you having the hissy fit and doing the name calling. The onlyk “name” i called you is “anti-Israeli type” and if that offends you sorry, but you don’t sound particularly “pro Israeli” to me. And buddy, you always have a choice.

Credible observers are those who give to the best of their abilities an unbiased opinion and don’t with-hold relevant information, such as the information about Sharon’s senior adviser.

“As for how “fargone’ I am, I don’t recall writing a word accusing you of “hate speech.” Perhaps it’s you who is so feverishly fargone, not me.”

Actually you did accuse me of being an “anti Israeli type”, meaning that I hate and oppose the state of Israel which is not true.
As I stated before certain individuals are so far gone that when they see any minor criticism of Israel they jump to some rather drastic conclusions.

“actually a “ceasefire” actually means all fire ceases”

The Hamas government did indeed cease all fire.

“In any event, the violations were more than rocket attacks, unless you consider tunnelling under Israel with a view toward kidnap and murder non-ceasefire violations: More of your “pro-Israel” position coming out there, perhaps?”

Perhaps you are optically challenged, i wrote quite clearly above that both sides violated aspects of the cease-fire agreement, however Israel was the main offender due to its greater number of breaches as well as the severity of them.

“A-it’s nonsense that a blockade is worse than a siege, as a siege would by definition involve a blockade and also implies trying to capture a city. so that’s bullshit.”

A blockade is indeed worse, as stated above it affects an entire nation, not just a single city, therefore the number of people suffering is higher.

“I’d be loathe to sign another ersatz “ceasefire” again too.”

So you’re against ceasefires, what a shame.

“Israel is somehow obligated to keep gazans fit and healthy to Oxfam’s standards when their govt displays nothing but unrelenting hostility”

As stated before Hamas was open to start a ceasefire, second of all Israel is required under international law not to damage the health and well-being of the people of Gaza, doing so is a war crime.

“and as if there weren’t a border with egypt from which the supposed “minimum needs” not being met from the Israeli border could be met.”

Two wrongs do not make a right.

“yes, the usual tactic, find one quote from one conversation and conflate that into a certainty,”

I see that you are not disputing it.

“well I don’t have time to list 100,”

Please make the time; you are after all the one who said he could find 100 people, so please name them.

“And by all means, call me princess more.”

If you insist on getting into hissy fits ill have no choice but to do so.

Jim, I’d be interested in your reasoning on how East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) constitute ‘Palestinian land.’ Since the Arabs as a whole rejected the 1948 partition in an attempt to grab the entire area in question, these lands were never properly ‘awarded’ to anyone but constituted ceasefire lines. Do you believe that if someone successfully steals something, it’s theirs, but if the original owner gets his property back it constitutes theft?

You might also be amazed if you checked the archives of the Jewish National Fund and found out how much of the land you call ‘Palestinian’ was actually legally purchased and merely seized by Jordan forcibly in 1948. And of course, we’re not even mentioning the land owned by the almost 1 million Jews ethnically cleansed from the Arab world after 1948.

You’ll notice that Jim still has responded to this in any logical way and still insists on calling these areas ‘Palestinian land’. Apparently 19 years of theft by Jordan not only trumps 40 years of Israeli possession and all Israeli rights to the area ( including legally purchased land) but
allows him to somehow consider this the territory of a nationality that didn’t even exist until after Israel retrieved the area in 1967!

DMoloney, unfortunately your advocacy of the Saudi ‘peace’ Ultimatum ( which is what it is, since to the Arabs all of it is non-negotiable) reveals a certain ignorance of the lay of the land..and that you may not know all of what the Ultimatum consists of.

Here’s the ultimatum in a nutshell: Israel retreats to the pre-1967 borders which former Israeli UN Ambassador Abba Eban aptly referred to as ‘the Auschwitz lines’, because they’re indefensible, including a loss of the strategic Golan heights and a nine mile wide ‘neck’ that would allow the country to be cut in two if the Israelis ever lost a single battle or were taken by surprise.

Retreating to those borders, Israel gives up a huge amount of land that was legally purchased through the Jewish National Fund in places like Ariel, Gilo and Gush Etzion and creates over half a million homeless Israeli refugees they will have to resettle. In addition, they give up all access to their Holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem, the spiritual heart of the country. You might want to research the destruction and desecration of Jewish Holy sites by the Arabs the last time this happened back in 1948, as well as how the ‘Palestinians’ have treated Jewish Holy sites like Rachel’s Tomb, Joseph’s Tomb, and the Cave of the Patriarchs.

Finally, Israel is to admit an unlimited number of genocidal ‘refugees into what’s left of Israel.

In exchange for all this, the Israelis get vague promises of ‘normal relations’ and peace dependent on people who will not even suffer a single Jew to live among them.

Great deal, isn’t it?

Needless to say, the sort of ‘peace’ an Israeli acceptance of this would lead to is the peace of the cemetery. And I don’t think the Israelis are willing to commit suicide just yet to buy the EU and the Obama Administration the illusion of peace for a little while until it’s their turn.

As the Islamists are fond of saying, ‘First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.’

Regards,
Rob @ Joshuapundit

But as to your “points,” well:
1-as revealed by Sharon’s senior adviser and known to all credible observers. — revealed by Sharon’s advisor, yes. known to all credible observers — your opinion, you decide whose ‘credible,’ must be nice to be the arbiter of such things.
2-Actually I’m quite pro-Israeli but individuals such as yourself are so far gone that you are unable to distinguish between hate-speech and constructive criticism. — Yes quite pro-israeli. it shows. As for how “fargone’ I am, I don’t recall writing a word accusing you of “hate speech.” Perhaps it’s you who is so feverishly fargone, not me. Leaving aside for the moment just how “constructive” your “criticism” is.
3-Actually Hamas rocket fire did stop, some other groups launched rockets however, but overall there was a 98% decrease.— actually a “ceasefire” actually means all fire ceases — all being 100% not 98%. In any event, the violations were more than rocket attacks, unless you consider tunnelling under Israel with a view toward kidnap and murder non-ceasefire violations: More of your “pro-Israel” position coming out there, perhaps?
4-a blockade is worse than a siege for it affects an entire nation, not just a city, a blockade can also be considered an act of war. A-it’s nonsense that a blockade is worse than a siege, as a siege would by definition involve a blockade and also implies trying to capture a city. so that’s bullshit. As for the blockade being considered an act of war, yes i suppose it could. Responding to other acts of war (like firing a single rocket for example, or capturing soldiers, or digging tunnels for the purpose of doing so, etc. etc. etc. all could be considered acts of war, but i suppose acts that could be considered acts of war only are considered acts of war by “pro-Israeli” types like yourself when performed by Israel.

Hamas was willing to renew the cease fire. Israel was the one who declined. — You make out like your historical interpretation are undisputed facts when in reality they are anything but, as the passage I quoted in the previous post indicated. I’m not going to bother posting it again. If I were the Israeli leadership and the rockets started to fly big time again after the tunnelling incident in which Israel killed 6 attempted infiltrators, I’d be loathe to sign another ersatz “ceasefire” again too.

it was an insufficient amount to meet the minimum needs of the Gazans, that is why all reliable groups such as Oxfam consider the blockade to be a crime.— ahh yes, as though Israel is somehow obligated to keep gazans fit and healthy to Oxfam’s standards when their govt displays nothing but unrelenting hostility… and as if there weren’t a border with egypt from which the supposed “minimum needs” not being met from the Israeli border could be met. As for Oxfam, I’m sure it’s as “pro-Israel” as you are, or as unbiased as HRW, AI, the goldstone report, et al. As in, devote a cursory sentence to how something israel does is “understandable,” or some such remark, then use the rest of the missive to attack Israel and make the Palestinians (and by implication their leadership) as passive victims without agency in any of this.

Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad himself has spoken of how Hamas is willing to comply with the 67 borders. — yes, the usual tactic, find one quote from one conversation and conflate that into a certainty, never mind it’s disputed by the majority of other Israelis in leadership positions. not to mention that “willing to comply with the 67 borders,” is hardly the same thing as negotiating a peace settlement, recognition, etc. etc etc. it’s all weasel words with you, isn’t it?

Please list 100 Israelis who have the same or greater authority than Diskins whom disagree with his view.– well I don’t have time to list 100, but how about the Israeli PM at the time, the current PM, the FM at the time, defence minister, other top military and political leaders, etc etc. i’m sure that would add up to 100. But hey, you’ve got a quote by Diskins, so it must be a certainty.

Second, would the Saudi led Arab States agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and renounce Arab right of return. Yes. — again, says you. The Palestinians have never accepted it, and the Saudis et al have never explicitly stated that. Nor are they willing to negotiate anything.
try again. And by all means, call me princess more. It totally bolsters your argument.

3-
3-

I’m aware that Israel withdrew from Gaza, just as I’m aware that this was due to the Israeli government at the time attempting to remove any chance of a Palestinian state from forming as revealed by Sharon’s senior adviser and known to all credible observers.

“Naturally, you gravitate toward one view that conforms most to your anti-Israel worldview”

Actually I’m quite pro-Israeli but individuals such as yourself are so far gone that you are unable to distinguish between hate-speech and constructive criticism.

“No It didn’t STOP it was reduced which is hardly the same thing when you’re talking about rockets.”

Actually Hamas rocket fire did stop, some other groups launched rockets however, but overall there was a 98% decrease.

“What’s more disturbing is your word “siege” when what you really mean is “partial blockade,” of a statelet governed by an entity sworn to Israel’s destruction.”

If you want to use the word blockade that is fine, however it should be noted that a blockade is worse than a siege for it affects an entire nation, not just a city, a blockade can also be considered an act of war

The “partial blockade” as you put it is denounced by all reliable aid organisations as collective punishment and that Israel’s actions are illegal under international law, it is not even productive in countering Hamas, other options are on the table yet Israel is choosing the one which causes major pain and suffering on the people of Gaza.

“In light of these systematic and serious violations of the ceasefire by Hamas and other Palestinian groups in Gaza, it is absurd to claim that Israel broke the ceasefire in November or at any other time.”

Israel violated it by not removing the blockade, they also violated it only after a few hours after it was put in place by attacking fishermen on the 19th/20th and as pointed out before according to Israeli intelligence sources Hamas was willing to renew the cease fire.
Israel was the one who declined.

“As for the border being “closed” which violated the ceasefire, in fact, Israel did open the crossings and allowed truckload after truckload of supplies to enter Gaza.”

Israel did indeed allow a small number of trucks over, but it was an insufficient amount to meet the minimum needs of the Gazans, that is why all reliable groups such as Oxfam consider the blockade to be a crime.

“So much for your certainty about the ceasefire and who “broke” it.”

Again, both sides violated the cease-fire, but Israel was the main offender and it was the Israelis who were the main obstacle towards renewing it.

“Says you. Two points here, Hamas never formally made any such offer, it was just talk; but more important, a ceasefire isn’t “de facto” recognition, and “de facto recognition” isn’t peace, and certainly doesn’t adhere to previous agreements signed by previous Palestinian authorities. No points for you there.”

Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad himself has spoken of how Hamas is willing to comply with the 67 borders.

“I Can find you 100 Israelis who disagree with Diskins. ALSO SEE ABOVE”

Please list 100 Israelis who have the same or greater authority than Diskins whom disagree with his view.

“This is a usual method of argument the anti-israel types use. Find a single source or a single quote that backs their contention, and ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary, and then declare what they claim to be a “certainty.” ANYTHING BUT.”
Whoa! Capital letters, take it easy there princess!

Second, would the Saudi led Arab States agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and renounce Arab right of return

Yes

“Pathetic recycled arguments. try again.”

Indeed you must princess.

1-”withdrawing from Palestinian land — some defence, and never mind that in Gaza, they already did that.” This would have been fine if not for the fact that Israel used this as a distraction so that it could then tighten its hold over the West Bank, Ariel Sharon’s senior advisor Dov Weisglass admitted that this move was done to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.

Dov weisglass notwithstanding, Israel did withdraw from Gaza. That’s a fact, the rest is opinion. Naturally, you gravitate toward one view that conforms most to your anti-Israel worldview. Olmert was prepared to give up most of the West Bank, by then Weisglas was obviously old news.

“2-”Israel lift the strangulating siege of Gaza.” — there wouldn’t be a siege of there weren’t daily rocket barrages”
This is wrong, rocket fire by Hamas stopped and major efforts were made to stop other groups from firing rockets, yet the siege remained intact.

No It didn’t STOP it was reduced which is hardly the same thing when you’re talking about rockets. But that’s quibbling anyway. What’s more disturbing is your word “siege” when what you really mean is “partial blockade,” of a statelet governed by an entity sworn to Israel’s destruction. Furthermore, what you claim is a certainty (i.e. that Israel broke the ceasefire) is disputed big time, to say the least. Read the following:
From the start of the ceasefire at 6 AM on June 19 till the incident on November 4th cited by CNN, the following attacks were launched against Israel from Gaza in direct violation of the agreement:
* 18 mortars were fired at Israel in this period, beginning on the night of June 23.
* 20 rockets were fired, beginning on June 24, when 3 rockets hit the Israeli town of Sderot.
* On July 6 farmers working in the fields of Nahal Oz were attacked by light arms fire from Gaza.
* On the night of August 15 Palestinians fired across the border at Israeli soldiers near the Karni crossing.
* On October 31 an IDF patrol spotted Palestinians planting an explosive device near the security fence in the area of the Sufa crossing. As the patrol approached the fence the Palestinians fired two anti-tank missiles.
In addition, there were two Palestinian attempts to infiltrate from Gaza into Israel apparently to abduct Israelis. Both were major violations of the ceasefire.
• The first came to light on Sept. 28, when Israeli personnel arrested Jamal Atallah Sabah Abu Duabe. The 21-year-old Rafah resident had used a tunnel to enter Egypt and from there planned to slip across the border into Israel. Investigation revealed that Abu Duabe was a member of Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and that he planned to lure Israeli soldiers near the border by pretending to be a drug smuggler, capture them, and then sedate them with sleeping pills in order to abduct them directly into Gaza through a preexisting tunnel. For more details click here and here.
• The second abduction plan was aborted on the night of Nov 4, thanks to a warning from Israeli Intelligence. Hamas had dug another tunnel into Israel and was apparently about to execute an abduction plan when IDF soldiers penetrated about 250 meters into Gaza to the entrance of the tunnel, hidden under a house. Inside the house were a number of armed Hamas members, who opened fire. The Israelis fired back and the house exploded – in total 6 or 7 Hamas operatives were killed and several were wounded. Among those killed were Mazen Sa’adeh, a Hamas brigade commander, and Mazen Nazimi Abbas, a commander in the Hamas special forces unit. For more details click here. Note: It was when Israel aborted this imminent Hamas attack that the group and other Palestinian groups in Gaza escalated their violations of the ceasefire by beginning to once again barrage Israel with rockets and mortars.

In light of these systematic and serious violations of the ceasefire by Hamas and other Palestinian groups in Gaza, it is absurd to claim that Israel broke the ceasefire in November or at any other time.

As for the border being “closed” which violated the ceasefire, in fact, Israel did open the crossings and allowed truckload after truckload of supplies to enter Gaza. Closures until November were short, and in direct response to Palestinian violations, some of which were detailed above.

So much for your certainty about the ceasefire and who “broke” it.

“which is that there wouldn’t be a siege or any form of “collective punishment” if Hamas adhered to agreements already signed by previous palestinian govts and stopped firing rockets completely”

3-Hamas did stop firing rockets and due to being under pressure from the Palestinian public offered to Israel a ceasefire, de facto recognition of two states if Israel returned to the 67 borders.

Says you. Two points here, Hamas never formally made any such offer, it was just talk; but more important, a ceasefire isn’t “de facto” recognition, and “de facto recognition” isn’t peace, and certainly doesn’t adhere to previous agreements signed by previous Palestinian authorities. No points for you there.

4-which Hamas of course broke by building tunnels under Israeli soil.

Israel broke it by not lifting the illegal siege, Hamas according to the head of the Israeli security services Shin Bet Yuval Diskinsaid that Hamas was interested in continuing the truce, if the blockade ended and if a ceasefire on the West Bank was made.
I Can find you 100 Israelis who disagree with Diskins. ALSO SEE ABOVE
This is a usual method of argument the anti-israel types use. Find a single source or a single quote that backs their contention, and ignore the mountains of evidence to the contrary, and then declare what they claim to be a “certainty.” ANYTHING BUT.

5-“that is simply not true. It’s always been about Palestinian/Arab rejectionism of the notion of a Jewish state,”

In 2002 the Saudi peace initiative offered to recognise Israel if it withdrew to the 67 borders, Hamas as stated before offered the same thing.
first, as noted above, hamas never offered any such thing, just a 10 or 50 year hudna which, if they enforced it as well as the ceasefire discussed earlier, meant a couple of rockets a month ad infinitum. Second, would the Saudi led Arab States agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and renounce Arab right of return. I know the Palestinians won’t. Theyve made that abundantly clear. Of course you know this and ignore it, as it doesn’t fit your worldview.

Pathetic recycled arguments. try again.

This would have been fine if not for the fact that Israel used this as a distraction so that it could then tighten its hold over the West Bank, Ariel Sharon’s senior advisor Dov Weisglass admitted that this move was done to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.

“2-”Israel lift the strangulating siege of Gaza.” — there wouldn’t be a siege of there weren’t daily rocket barrages”

This is wrong, rocket fire by Hamas stopped and major efforts were made to stop other groups from firing rockets, yet the siege remained intact.

“Your definition of keeping to the ceasefire includes allowing other groups to fire rockets at will from territory under Hamas control and building tunnels under Israeli soil to smuggle weapons and kidnap soldiers.”

Again, under the cease-fire there was a dramatic reduction, this would have continued if Israel lifted the siege.

“which is that there wouldn’t be a siege or any form of “collective punishment” if Hamas adhered to agreements already signed by previous palestinian govts and stopped firing rockets completely”

Hamas did stop firing rockets and due to being under pressure from the Palestinian public offered to Israel a ceasefire, de facto recognition of two states if Israel returned to the 67 borders.

which Hamas of course broke by building tunnels under Israeli soil.

Israel broke it by not lifting the illegal siege, Hamas according to the head of the Israeli security services Shin Bet Yuval Diskinsaid that Hamas was interested in continuing the truce, if the blockade ended and if a ceasefire on the West Bank was made.

“that is simply not true. It’s always been about Palestinian/Arab rejectionism of the notion of a Jewish state,”

In 2002 the Saudi peace initiative offered to recognise Israel if it withdrew to the 67 borders, Hamas as stated before offered the same thing.

The revised list of how israel can defend itself BUT:
1-No wall
2-No blockade/”siege”
3-No disproportionate response
3a-No “proportionate” response (i.e. firing rockets indiscrimately into Gaza whenever rockets fired indiscrimately into Israel)
3b-No response if it’s just “peashooter” qassam rockets (yes, i’ve actually read posts where these rockets are described as peashooters)
4-No targeted assassinations of terrorists and terrorism planners
5-No sonic booms
6-Have i missed anything ?

List of ways Israel can defend itself that are acceptable:
1-dismantle itself
2-negotiate a “loser take all” agreement (the only agreement that appears acceptable to “moderate” Abbas, never mind Hamas)
3-sit back and take it and hope it stops

Jimbo claims that there was a Hamas ceasefire, which is true in the sense that considerably FEWER rockets rained down on Sderot during the time of the ceasefire, which Hamas of course broke by building tunnels under Israeli soil. Still, they didn’t rein in other groups firing rockets. And once Israel retaliated for the blatant ceasefire violation of building tunnels, they resumed their daily rocket attacks for a month before Israel responded. As for his contention that it is not about the existence of Israel but rather about the rights of Palestinians being respected, that is simply not true. It’s always been about Palestinian/Arab rejectionism of the notion of a Jewish state, if Israel were accepted for what it is Palestinian rights would not be an issue — think back to before 1967, Jimbo; maybe it’s you who needs to do some research.

I will concede it’s big of you — in a last minute aside of course — to perfunctorily condemn targeting and loss of innocents in Sderot too… There, there, you’re now morally off the hook.