paulh
On 14 Apr 2002 14:19:45 GMT, mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote:

In article <2e4ibu412v1n1bqpmqrjm7dvm7ktvqlg9k@4ax.com>, paulh <paulh@fahncahn.com>writes:

Anyway...what civilians are being brutalized? The same civilians, a vast majority of which, support and condone suicide bombers?

How do you know how many support it? You're just making that up. And are you saying it's ok to brutalise an entire population as long as 51% support the terrorist activities of a portion of that population? Or do you need 66%? I need to know what percentage is required before one can brutalise an opposing community..

"According to a poll conducted among Palestinian adults from the Gaza Strip

and

the West Bank including East Jerusalem at the end of May by Dr. Nabil Kukali and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO), "a substantial

majority

(76.1%) support suicidal attacks like that of Netanya [in May], whereas

12.5%

oppose, and 11.4% express no opinion."

So you're saying that once 76.1% of the community supports terror tactics then the other side is permitted to do whatever it wants with complete moral impunity?

And what you don't seem to see is that this is cyclical violence. Why

should

the Israelis give up first? Why should the Palestinians give up first? Neither side has the reason or willpower to do so.

Maybe since the Palestinians started the most recent round of violence (this

is

not contested) they should stop forst.

Isn't this a bit childish? This 'you started it' argument. It merely confirms that the Israelis are no better than those they fight.

Thats because the peace Barak insists on is untenable for the Palestinians.

It's not untenable. It's perfectly workable.

To Barak...if it was perfect to the Palestinians then they would have accepted it.. I'm sure YOU think its fine.. pity the people who have to live with it don't.

Just being offered something doesn't mean you must accept it.

And this result is better?

Not for either side.