Some Talking points...

[MGB8]

A list of things Israel needs to Emphasize in the media (in shorthand, I hope you all get em):

On Israel's right to exist:
1. The area was known as Judea to the Romans. They changed the name to "Palestine" After great Revolt.

2. Never was a "Palestinian" State on all the Judea...a mixed history of rulers...most of them NOT Arab.

3. Balfour Declaration and UN Plan...Israel was attacked, and not helped much, either.

4. While some displacement of Judean Arabs did occur, the bottom line is that there are 22 Arab Countries, occupying 99% of the middle east...but only ONE Jewish State.

5. Given everything that has happened to the Jews, they deserve ONE LITTLE state in light of the Arabs 22 HUGE states.


On the Palestinian's "Right to Resist Occupation."
1. First, What about Jordan's "occupation" between 48 and 67.

2. Second, no divine right to land.

3. Not "generational land." Population numbers show that the area was sparsely populated (and remember, by more than Arabs, too) until the Zionist movement when growth occurs.

4. The idea of a Palestinian "Ethnicity" is a lie. Just Arabs of a certain region. NO historic ethnicity, various tribes, many closer to arabs in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon than to others in West Bank. This has been admitted by PLO members.



On Arafat and the PA's trustworthiness etc.
1. How many last chances does this guy get?

2. Oslo WAS an interim state...blew money for education, infrastructure on corruption and terror. They HAD "hope," heck, Clinton visited them and they were offered almost everything they wanted. Didn't keep any of their promises.

3. PA groups have "Palestine" encompassing ALL OF ISRAEL -- ON THEIR SYMBOLS. Also Arafat's Kafiye, PA schoolbooks, etc. Even the flag (that triangle - hmm... what does that kinda look like...)

4. Have been shown to by lying many times...trojan horse statement...plan of phases...massacres that didn't happen, staged funerals, Karine A etc. One thing in Arabic, opposite in English.

5. Arafat's terrorist history, including murdering US diplomat.

6. Arafat siding with Sadaam.

7. Revolving door prisons.

8. Martyr culture. Arafat's payments to "martyr" families.


On Israeli self defense:
1. Is screening at an airport "collective punishment" - Checkpoints are just airpoint screen on a bigger scale, NECESSITATED BY ARAB TERRORISM.

2. Killing people who blow up civilians isn't "assasination."

3. Stones can kill, knives can kill, Israelis fire rubber bullets to defend themselves...rubber bullets can kill, too.

[MGB8]

Forgot one...

On the conflict now

Over 90% Jewish deaths....NON-COMBATANTS (some were soldiers, but not on duty or active at such time.)

Over 80% Arab deaths - COMBATANTS.

Also..."died" does not mean killed by Israel. For example the little boy killed in the crossfire was most likely killed by Palestinian fire.

[peacelover]

Never was a "Palestinian" State on all the Judea...a mixed history of rulers...most of them NOT Arab.

The idea of a Palestinian "Ethnicity" is a lie. Just Arabs of a certain region. NO historic ethnicity, various tribes, many closer to arabs in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon than to others in West Bank. This has been admitted by PLO members.

Firstly, by 'no state' you mean no sovereignity... so what? There was a PLACE called Palestine, where people lived and considered to be their home. When it comes down to a moral (as opposed to legal) argument, lack of sovereignity makes no difference.

Secondly, there is little difference in ethnicity between the English, Irish, Scottish Welsh, French... so do you disagree that they deserve their own country?

Given that some of my relatives are Palestinian, I know that the myth created by Zionist propagandists (I presume) that there is no such thing as Palestinians, simply is not true. I actually find it quite offensive to hear people use that argument to justify why it was OK for my 4 year old uncle was shot by armed Zionists in 48 as he and so many others were forced out. Mind you, 'no Palestinian identity' is an improvement upon the view that palestine was 'a land without a people'

However, the Western media (to my knowledge) very rarely if ever calls for the state of Israel to be dismantled.


First, What about Jordan's "occupation" between 48 and 67.

The occupation was condemned by the Arab league who refused to recognise Palestinian land as part of anotehr country, and the Palestinians in Jordan weren't too happy either. True, there was not an intifada, but it was a less brutal occupation, and they were given citizenship. Furthermore, it's no surprise that Muslims would rather be ruled by Muslims. So why is it such a crime that they were happier under Jordanian rule?



Second, no divine right to land.

Zionism was initially a secular movement, and Israel is a secular state, so let's not bring divinity into this.


Killing people who blow up civilians isn't "assasination."

Yes it is.
Firstly, Often, innocent civilians (on several occasions toddlers) have been killed alongside or instead of the intended taget.

Secondly, extra-judicial assassinations (as they are recognised as) are illegal

Thirdly, it amounts to the death penalty without a fair trial, so I think 'assassination' is quite a kind word to use.



Is screening at an airport "collective punishment" - Checkpoints are just airpoint screen on a bigger scale, NECESSITATED BY ARAB TERRORISM.

False analogy - ALL people at airpoirts are screened, not just Palestinians. Furthermore, air travel screenings do not obstruct people as they go about their every day life.

Secondly, at airports people are not humiliated and harrassed like Palestinians are. If you dispute their treatment at checkpoints, let me know and I will post some links to back up my point

[minusthejihad]

Hey PL,

Is this a lie?

Originally Posted by PeaceLover in the forum based on the Norway sanctions:

"I am a white Christian, and have no loyalty to Islam whatsoever."


Looks like you tried to play the objective observer Card on another forum, but in this one, you had Palestinian family killed by Zionists and the further rant, which shows you've obviously taken a side.

Either you are lying on one of the forums, or this is another PeaceLover. You should watch what you post on all the forums, I watch these things frequently.

[victot]

i think another good short argument is something along the lines of,

if for instance, germany conquered saudi arabia, and forced out all of it inhabitants, and then 3 million or so germans moved there and lived there for 1000 years, and called themselves gerabians or something...
would arabs and muslims ever stop trying to get saudi arabia back? once they were able to conquer the mighty gerabians, wouldn't they dispel a lot if not all of the christians gerabians back to germany?
the arabs would certainly at least want to be the majority in their ancient and holy homeland wouldn't they?

israel is the jews equivilant to saudi arabia, jerusalem is our mecca...
and it is MUCH smaller than saudi arabia, and it is the ONLY jewish homeland... and it's had tremendous religeous significance to the jews for thousands of years before saudia arabia, mecca, had significance to arabs. (is this correct?)

i think of all the peoples of the earth who could understand the zionist position, it would be arabs. they are also a strong willed, nationalistic, religeous people...
i wish arabs could try and be more understanding...
cuz they would probably be at least as determined as jews, at trying to get their own holy of holy lands back themsevles.

[MGB8]

No. By no State I mean no state. Or Sovereignty.

The "place called Palestine" was also called Trans-Jordan, Judea, Canaan....

Did people consider it their home. Of course. Did it severly inconvenience them to have a Jewish State founded on *some* parts where Arab population, along with other populations, lived.

Of course.

Should it have been life shattering. NO! Should they have been compensated for land lost? Yes, but ONLY IF the "other side" compensated those severly inconvenienced by them (the Jewish refugees - Arab states.) The reason there are "no" Jewish refugees is BECAUSE THEY RESETTLED!

BTW...Palestine WAS a land without a people in many sense, although by WWI I think the statement is pretty much innacurate so far as in there were people living their. But was it "the Land's people" no.

Also, Yes, some Jews and Zionists did very bad things. True. But, on the whole, Jewish hands are MUCH MUCH MUCH cleaner than Arab/Muslim hands in regards to this conflict. Remember who started this war, instead of just accepting a (smaller) Jewish State - looking to CAUSE GENOCIDE - BTW, and still with that goal - GENOCIDE OF JEWS - TO THIS DAY!

Onto "assasinations" - the term only applies to NON-MILITARY leaders - thus they are not assasinations.

However, you have a strong point in that the killing of civillians in these attacks is, at best, highly questionable. But it IS WAR, and civilians get killed in war. NOT TARGETED, BTW. But, sadly, killed.

As for checkpoints - I don't disagree that some, even many, Israeli soldiers have behaved badly. I also assert, however, that Arabs have been beligerant and behaved badly themselves, and that the young soldiers are in a stressful situation. Humiliation and harrasment sucks...but, frankly, its more psychological than anything, and matters only as much as one lets it matter.

Oh, and to my knowledge, everyone, Jewish or Muslim, is checked at these checkpoints. So its a VERY CORRECT analogy. This is where the terrosists come from, thus everyone coming from their must be screened to prevent terror. Inconvinience, yes. Necessity, yes.


Originally posted by peacelover


Firstly, by 'no state' you mean no sovereignity... so what? There was a PLACE called Palestine, where people lived and considered to be their home. When it comes down to a moral (as opposed to legal) argument, lack of sovereignity makes no difference.

Secondly, there is little difference in ethnicity between the English, Irish, Scottish Welsh, French... so do you disagree that they deserve their own country?

Given that some of my relatives are Palestinian, I know that the myth created by Zionist propagandists (I presume) that there is no such thing as Palestinians, simply is not true. I actually find it quite offensive to hear people use that argument to justify why it was OK for my 4 year old uncle was shot by armed Zionists in 48 as he and so many others were forced out. Mind you, 'no Palestinian identity' is an improvement upon the view that palestine was 'a land without a people'

However, the Western media (to my knowledge) very rarely if ever calls for the state of Israel to be dismantled.



The occupation was condemned by the Arab league who refused to recognise Palestinian land as part of anotehr country, and the Palestinians in Jordan weren't too happy either. True, there was not an intifada, but it was a less brutal occupation, and they were given citizenship. Furthermore, it's no surprise that Muslims would rather be ruled by Muslims. So why is it such a crime that they were happier under Jordanian rule?




Zionism was initially a secular movement, and Israel is a secular state, so let's not bring divinity into this.



Yes it is.
Firstly, Often, innocent civilians (on several occasions toddlers) have been killed alongside or instead of the intended taget.

Secondly, extra-judicial assassinations (as they are recognised as) are illegal

Thirdly, it amounts to the death penalty without a fair trial, so I think 'assassination' is quite a kind word to use.




False analogy - ALL people at airpoirts are screened, not just Palestinians. Furthermore, air travel screenings do not obstruct people as they go about their every day life.

Secondly, at airports people are not humiliated and harrassed like Palestinians are. If you dispute their treatment at checkpoints, let me know and I will post some links to back up my point

[peacelover]

Hey PL,

Is this a lie?

Originally Posted by PeaceLover in the forum based on the Norway sanctions:

"I am a white Christian, and have no loyalty to Islam whatsoever."


Looks like you tried to play the objective observer Card on another forum, but in this one, you had Palestinian family killed by Zionists and the further rant, which shows you've obviously taken a side.

Either you are lying on one of the forums, or this is another PeaceLover. You should watch what you post on all the forums, I watch these things frequently.

Minus, I really cannot be bothered to discuss with you if you are going to call me a liar. For the record:

I am indeed a white Christian. That is no lie.

My Grandmother was a Palestinian Christian who lived in Jaffa at the time of 47/8. She was married to a Northern Irish man. My family on the other side is completely English, therefore I am a quarter Palestinian. If there is any part of this you don't understand, let me know.

As for the other forum, I was repsonding, AS YOU WELL KNOW, to James' assertion that I was saying Islam was always right. I am not a Muslim, and never have I said I was. The point of that post was that I have no loyalty to Islam, not that I was an 'objective observer', although as I explained to you, over the past year I have tried very hard to try to be impartial, and that has led to changes in opinion for me.

MGB8


Should it have been life shattering. NO!

Well, it was life-shattering. This is not only Israel's fault though, as other Arab nations were reluctant to give them new lives in their countries. However, I think it is a case of both parties at fault as opposed to Israel was right and the Arabs were wrong.


The reason there are "no" Jewish refugees is BECAUSE THEY RESETTLED!
They resettled in Israel - an entirely different situation because to have Jews move to Israel is the fulfilment of the Zionist dream, not the end of it.



Onto "assasinations" - the term only applies to NON-MILITARY leaders - thus they are not assasinations.

In matters of life and death, it's better to leave semantics out of it. The people targetted have not necessarily been found guilty of military crimes etc etc, so as such are not expected by international law and morality to receive the death penalty.

My point was that assassination is a kinder word to use than murder.


However, you have a strong point in that the killing of civillians in these attacks is, at best, highly questionable. But it IS WAR, and civilians get killed in war. NOT TARGETED, BTW. But, sadly, killed.

You have a different attitude when it comes to Israeli civilians being killed though.
If you genuinely do think it's sad that Palestinians get killed then you should be supporting everything possible to stop it (providing this does not implicate other civilians)
I don't accept the 'not targetted' argument. I'm not saying Israel goes out and looks to kill as many civilians as possible, but until I get shown how a civilian 'accidentally' killed by Israel is any less dead than a civilian deliberately killed by terrorists, I will not stand for people trying to make excuses. The end result is the same, however they die.

If your view is that it's sad they die, but end justifies the means, then I could turn round and say it's sad Israelis get blown up, but Israel shouldn't be occupying the territories. Would that not be a highly immoral argument? But if you accept that the tragedy of Pal civilians being killed is just as great as Israelis (and remember - no degrees of death) then really, it is no different.

Once someone is dead, the motivation of the killer is irrelevant. Death can never be atoned, therefore it must be prevented. I don't think some people realise that, when they stick up for casualties caused by Israel on the grounds that they are not intentional.


Oh, and to my knowledge, everyone, Jewish or Muslim, is checked at these checkpoints.

There are usually 2 lanes - one is a high speed lane where Israeli number plates are whisked through. The other is for the Palestinian people. Obviously, the Israelis don't need the permits that Pals do.

[Mediocrates]

Coming into the US from Canada by road it's much easier if you are American than if you are not. Same road, fewer questions. That is if you tell the truth. Same with Airports. Coming back into the US from Canada is much simpler if you are an American citizen than if you are not. A Canadian colleague of mine was banned from entering the US for 2 years just on a trivial paperwork glitch on one trip to the states on business working for a company that exists in both countries.

You don't need a passport to leave the US but it's very handy to have it on the return trip. Of course the flip side of that is that it is very hard to get a Canadian job if you are American. Much harder than the other way around.

At any rate - there are differences. All is not the transparency of the EU.

[MGB8]

The Targetting is indeed a HUGE issue.

INTENT matters, too. It does in the law, it does in real life.

First, many Palestinain civilians that have died have died either because (a) they were being used as human sheilds by Palestinain Terrorists, or (b) they were caught in crossfire.

In the (a) case, the resposnibility is on the Palestinian terrorists who put their civilians in the situation. In case (b), that's a by=product of war.

But there are "rules of war." And one is you don't attack non-combatats.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE, not in the loss, but in the morality, yes.

Also, The people killed by Israel's "targeted killings" aren't the usual "criminals" - they are enemies in war - there is a difference there, too.

[Mediocrates]

Secondly, there is little difference in ethnicity between the English, Irish, Scottish Welsh, French... so do you disagree that they deserve their own country?

The Irish the Welsh and the Scots were put down by the sword. They may very well want their own country. The Scotts have their own Parliament again. The Irish, well....you know what's going on there. The Welsh have a resurgence in their own language in the last 50 years, after 700 years of 'occupation' since the defeat of Owain Glendower. From the 11th to the 14th century up to the begining of the War of the Roses, parts of England were under the dominion of France or Spain even (at one time Acqutaine was under the control of the Pope, the anti Pope and the Spanish crown.

The Franks were originally from Germany - their capital was originally in Aachen. The borders of Europe never been stable. Western Europe since 1945 or so but then you have the Balkans, the breakup of Czechoslovakia, etc. Before that the borders of most of the countries of Europe have been in constant flux. Alsace, Germany, most of the Italian pennisula, Denmark and Sweden fought each other, Sweden and Norway, Denmark and Norway, Poland, Lithuania...my god it's been nothing but...the Mongols ran Moscow until 1300, the Turks were pushed back at the gates of Vienna in 1533 - that's during the lifetimes of both Copernicus and Michaelangelo.

[Mr. Pumps]

Lets face it..... Israel a very small territory and is in a infinitly tough position. Despite the IDF having all the latest and advanced weaponry, the Arab armies are more sinister and impressive than they have ever been.

Egypt has the best Tank in the world, AH-64A and D Apache helicopters and U.S harpoon missile and warships.

There are millions of Palestinians in the Gaza strip and West Bank.

There is a large Arab population in Israel ready to abandon her at the drop of a dime.

In the Middle East, the Israeli State is a Pirahna among huge Great White Sharks only getting more skilled and sharper teeth to hunt.

[alexbmn]

Egypt has the best tank in the world? M1A2 Abrams? Really?It doesnt matter .Before, Soviets always provided the Arabs with state of the art weaponry.What Israelis have always had is superior strategy and tactics.But the threat of a regional war is miniscule.The arabs have got their asses kicked so many times s that the idea of attacking Israel has been knocked out of their head.

[elke]

It seems that trying to reconcile the versions of history accepted by the pro-Israeli - or even neutral - and by the pro-Palestinian camps, is impossible as of now. Since historical facts are inevitably based on eye-witness testimony, whether written or verbal, and subject to further interpretation by the historian collecting the information, emotions are too involved at this point in time to ferret out "the whole truth".

Therefore, IMHO, our concentration has to be on the current situation and incontrovertible facts, which include fully analyzed statistics (such as the percentage of non-combatants killed - incontrovertible once we decide how to define non-combatants, of course ;) ).

What we need to pound into people's heads is that:
1) Israel has a right to exist, - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
2) As such, it has a right to defend its population, with military means if necessary
3) In urban warfare, innocent bystanders die sometimes.
4) It wasn't Israel who brought this fight into the urban areas, the terrorists did that.
5) When all is said and done, the Palestinian casualties end up in the Israeli hospitals, treated by the Israeli doctors, and use B'Tselem, an Israeli organization, to fight for their rights.
6) Arafat missed every chance he has had to save Palestinian lives.

And, most importantly: This fight is not with the Palestinian people, or with Islam. The winner will not be the side who kills more, - nor whose side lost more people. The winner will be the one who will finally be able to deliver PEACE to the region.

[Vic]

MGB8, Elke, whom are you going to tell it to? In what context? Maybe we should discuss the real-world communication situations and the efficiency of certain approaches?

Elke, I agree with you absolutely that the fixation on historic details is - outside of academic space - of littele use. Even counterproductive, I think: to the man in the street it can easily smack of sophistry. Not everyone has embraced the Jewish learning tradition ;) . The main point is to reach out to other people with whatever means, not to impress with abundant knowledge.

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
MGB8, Elke, whom are you going to tell it to? In what context? Maybe we should discuss the real-world communication situations and the efficiency of certain approaches?


Sounds good, where do we start? :)

I think it was a good idea to start this thread. In order to go out there and do what we have to do, we need to have a clue as to what our goals are, who the audience is, what are the media of communication available, and other rather mundane details.

In short, we need a PLAN.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by MGB8
A list of things Israel needs to Emphasize in the media (in shorthand, I hope you all get em):

Right on.

:cool:

[MGB8]

Actually, I think it IS about history. People have been conned into believing in certain "rights" etc, justifying the belief that Israel is "wrong."

There are only about 5 or 6 categories of questions that are asked, and Israeli officials, and pro-Israeli jews in general, need top have 5 or 6 facts on hand to strongly argue the Israeli point of view.

What are these categories:

1. Should Israel even exist at all?

Yes. First, Palestine is just a word, use Judea. Never any Palestinian State, really no real ethnicity, just arab (has been said by PLO officers) - Arabs have rest of mideast, why need Israel, too? 48 defensive war. 67, 73 defensive wars. Israel never promised squat on refugee issue, the Res 194 talk is BS, nor does it carry the force of law. Judeo-Christian ties to Jerusalem, Judea.


2. Offer Hope?

They already had it. Oslo created interim state. Gave em tons of money. Clinton visited arafat. Got offered 97% of what they wanted. Result - more, and deadlier, terrorism.


3. Arafat.

Proven Liar. Proven murderer. Tons of example (list a few). Never truly free elections while he's around.

etc.

[Vic]

Dear MGB8, how exactly do you plan to convey this to a disinterested audience? Kidnap some unfortunate members of your "target audience" and let them go free only after they have learned it by heart? :D

Have you ever asked yourself whether there are many people out there who are likely to appreciate the kind of information you suggest, as presented in raw form? If you are planning to convince the media, don't you think that the waste paper baskets of the respective institutions will be large enough to hold the readers' letters containing a text of the kind you are proposing?

There is nothing really new or sensational about such approaches. They have never really worked until now, and I don't see any chance that they would do so in future. Sorry, but come back to the earth.

What Israel needs are public relations campaigns designed roughly along the common marketing and advertisement approaches, i.e. based on emotional messages. Facts are a nice thing to have in the background, but they are not what influences the man on the street. Even less so with all the charming and touching Palestinians around.

[Mediocrates]

Yes propaganda is not a dirty word. It's a way of conveying highly partisan information in the most effective way.

[MGB8]

I disagree VIc, because I don't think Israel has ever effectively done it.

Bibi is Israel's best spokesman, and even he is not as organized or specific as I would ask.

Other Israeli-spokespeople are much, much worse.

When Israel has a representative speaking to the media, that representative should be like an American Politician, prepared for the questions likely to be recieved with specific points to emphasize in return.

Jewish agencies should be similarly prepared to respond to newspaper editorials and the like.

Finally, the more Jewish people are prepared for these questions, the better they will be able to convey their feelings to their friends, who will convey it to their friends, and so on.



Originally posted by Vic
Dear MGB8, how exactly do you plan to convey this to a disinterested audience? Kidnap some unfortunate members of your "target audience" and let them go free only after they have learned it by heart? :D

Have you ever asked yourself whether there are many people out there who are likely to appreciate the kind of information you suggest, as presented in raw form? If you are planning to convince the media, don't you think that the waste paper baskets of the respective institutions will be large enough to hold the readers' letters containing a text of the kind you are proposing?

There is nothing really new or sensational about such approaches. They have never really worked until now, and I don't see any chance that they would do so in future. Sorry, but come back to the earth.

What Israel needs are public relations campaigns designed roughly along the common marketing and advertisement approaches, i.e. based on emotional messages. Facts are a nice thing to have in the background, but they are not what influences the man on the street. Even less so with all the charming and touching Palestinians around.

[Vic]

Originally posted by MGB8
I disagree VIc, because I don't think Israel has ever effectively done it.

Bibi is Israel's best spokesman, and even he is not as organized or specific as I would ask.

Other Israeli-spokespeople are much, much worse.

When Israel has a representative speaking to the media, that representative should be like an American Politician, prepared for the questions likely to be recieved with specific points to emphasize in return.

Jewish agencies should be similarly prepared to respond to newspaper editorials and the like.

Finally, the more Jewish people are prepared for these questions, the better they will be able to convey their feelings to their friends, who will convey it to their friends, and so on. Don't you think that what you are actually writing yourself is more about rhetoric techniques than about specific arguments?

[Dalleer]

I think that Arafat is nothing more than the "Public image of Palestine".

Arafat has no control over his people anymore, "The Last chance" things are truly quite "Hilarious". The Palestinian Government is in Chaos, and Arafat won't admit that "His powerless and can't order things anymore", so that's why the Terrorists are running loose, shooting and bombing innocent people as much as they can.

To consider on What would happen if Arafat could gather his strengh and finally Order things around, he'd probaply be killed by his own men, or some sort of an Internal conflict would begin. As long as Hamas and all the other organizations are let to run loose, there won't be a Peaceful resolution to the conflict. And what comes to Israel's self defence right, I agree with it. The rest of the World leaders have to be quite dumb if they don't see that the Palestinians are also killing Small children, and innocent people, why is this not mentioned when people start to critisize Israel?

Why is the Palestinian Terrorism any different from the Israeli Counter-Attacks?

[Dalleer]

So, "Egypt has the best tank in the world" I see, well........

Why would the Arabs be willing to attack Israel, they've lost before and been humiliated because of that. And, What comes to the Equipment that the IDF has, I think that they will be quite capable to defend themselves at least as long as the US arrives to help....Maybe.

It is not the weaponery that you have, it is the way you handle it.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Dalleer

Why is the Palestinian Terrorism any different from the Israeli Counter-Attacks?

Assuming you are serious about needing help understanding this...

Palestinian terrorists purposely target Israeli civilians. They have clearly demonstrated that they look for the most helpless civilians available. Thus, the attack on a pizzeria filled with moms and toddlers; the attack on a Passover Seder attended mainly by elderly people; and the attack on a disco frequented largely by teenage girls.

Israel's counterattacks are intended to kill terrorist leaders, and they have done a darn good job of picking these people out. It is unfortunate that Palestinian civilians are sometimes killed, but it is not the goal. Sometimes they can get the guy in a taxi. Shehada was too careful, and he knew that Israel is loathe to attack him in a crowd. Really, he exploited this loathing, but Israel was tired of simply absorbing Hamas' mass murder attacks.

Now do you understand the difference?

[Dalleer]

I've just been Enlighted by your words, ibrodsky.

[Dalleer]

Absolute Truth