Hamas ends the Charade

[Ser Clegane]

but there was the little problem that in the repeated attempts to kill the individual they managed to kill a whole heap of innocent people , including bombing whole apartment blocks just in case he happened to be in them .

That is of course an important issue. The loss of lives among civilians is unfortunately very difficult to completely avoid when you try to eliminate terrorists, however, I am not at all convinced that the Israeli army (or secret services) care as much as they could (and should!) when it comes to keeping the death toll among innocent people as low as possible.
You can always claim that you are not intentionally targetting civilians, however as long as you apparently do not care too much about "collateral" damage there is not much of a differnence between "collateral" and "intention".

[x-dANGEr]

So, Israel is full of terrorists? (The government is involved in the planning of and asks for the killing of civilians + Before Israel had emerged, when Palestine was under the control of the UK, incoming Israelians used to slaughter the Palestinian public, some Palestinians resisted, some immigrated, but the whole thing comes back to the fact that Israelians attacked innocent people).

And, what is taking other's country? Diplomacy? I think it is really aggravating to call all those Palestinians fighting for their country terrorists, while Israelians get to slaughter people, innocent or not, and being greeted for their deeds.

[Ser Clegane]

So, Israel is full of terrorists? (The government is involved in the planning of and asks for the killing of civilians

Anybody who intentionally (and the intention is very important here) targets innocent civilians would be a terrorist in my eyes.
I don't think that this criteria is met by enough people in Israel to say that Israel is "full" of terrorists.

I think it is really aggravating to call all those Palestinians fighting for their country terrorists, while Israelians get to slaughter people, innocent or not, and being greeted for their deeds.

I agree to the extent that calling one atrocity terrorism while "greeting" other atrocities is aggravating (and you will not see too many people here who at the same time condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism on one hand and on the other hand support Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians)

However, even if one supports the cause of the Palestinian people, the approach that some Palestianians take (i.e., bombing weddings or buses with school children) is absolutely and completely inacceptable, no matter what you think about the occupation or about attacks by Israeli military.

I think it would be good for both sides in this conflict if they realized that the killing of innocent people is counter-productive to their cause (as long as their cause is to live in peace and not to annihilate the other side)

[x-dANGEr]

(and you will not see too many people here who at the same time condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism on one hand and on the other hand support Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians)

However, even if one supports the cause of the Palestinian people, the approach that some Palestianians take (i.e., bombing weddings or buses with school children) is absolutely and completely inacceptable, no matter what you think about the occupation or about attacks by Israeli military.

You just did it.. You mentioned how unacceptable is the approach of 'some' of the Palestinians, but didn't mention how bad is the Israelian one.

My whole point stands, and that is most of the people 'do' consider Palestinian fighters terrorists, and the Isaelian ones people who fight for a good cause.

I don't think that this criteria is met by enough people in Israel to say that Israel is "full" of terrorists.

I think the fact that Israel foundation was and is based on terror is enough to allow the term 'full' to be used.

[Ser Clegane]

You just did it.. You mentioned how unacceptable is the approach of 'some' of the Palestinians, but didn't mention how bad is the Israelian one.

Sorry - I am not going to mention atrocities committed by Israelis each time I comment on Palestianian terrorism.
If you interpret the absence of a comment as approval or even "greeting" of Israelis killing civilians I am somewhat surprised, but I will not bend over backwards to convince you otherwise as I can only assume that you are reading into statements what you want to see and not what is actually there

My whole point stands, and that is most of the people 'do' consider Palestinian fighters terrorists,

Those "fighters" who "fight" by murdering innocent people (not much of a "fight", is it?) are indeed considered to be terrorists by most people - you are correct here

and the Isaelian ones people who fight for a good cause.

Now you are mixing up two things:
a) The cause a group is fighting for
and
b) the means a group is using to fight for the cause
You can consider a cause to be good and just (e.g., an independent Palistianian state, protection of Israeli civilians) and still condemn the means (e.g., killing school children, indiscriminately shelling Palestinians)

I think the fact that Israel foundation was and is based on terror is enough to allow the term 'full' to be used.

Does that mean that if a Palestinian state is created that it would be then equally justified that Palestine is full of terrorists - even in 50 years from now?

[x-dANGEr]

If you interpret the absence of a comment as approval or even "greeting" of Israelis killing civilians I am somewhat surprised, but I will not bend over backwards to convince you otherwise as I can only assume that you are reading into statements what you want to see and not what is actually there

Since the majority of people I get to talk to do have that thought, why should you be different considering you haven't mentioned a thing about it? Now, maybe I was wrong in that statement, but you can't blame me, can you?

Those "fighters" who "fight" by murdering innocent people (not much of a "fight", is it?) are indeed considered to be terrorists by most people - you are correct here

People consider Hamas terrorists, while the intent of their fights is to kill enemy soldiers, but they sometimes might not be able to do it, since they are no where near to a techonology which they can limit the damage radius (People that get effected by it) through. Now, without generalizing, aren't those 'innocents' guilty of conquering? Or colonizing? Or taking Palestinian lands from Palestinians?

Now you are mixing up two things:
a) The cause a group is fighting for
and
b) the means a group is using to fight for the cause
You can consider a cause to be good and just (e.g., an independent Palistianian state, protection of Israeli civilians) and still condemn the means (e.g., killing school children, indiscriminately shelling Palestinians)

Read my statement well, I said "Most of the people do think so", but I think not, what good cause they're fighting for? You tell me if you know it (And you seem to know it).

Does that mean that if a Palestinian state is created that it would be then equally justified that Palestine is full of terrorists - even in 50 years from now?

No it wouldn't, it would be justified with the term 'Freed their lands'.

[Ser Clegane]

why should you be different considering you haven't mentioned a thing about it?

I haven't?

however, I am not at all convinced that the Israeli army (or secret services) care as much as they could (and should!) when it comes to keeping the death toll among innocent people as low as possible.
You can always claim that you are not intentionally targetting civilians, however as long as you apparently do not care too much about "collateral" damage there is not much of a differnence between "collateral" and "intention".

[...]

That goes for Palestinians as well as for Israelis - both should be criticized (and more than that) when they target civilians in this conflict.

I think I made pretty clear what I think about intentional or semi-intentional attacks on civilians on either side.
I specifically expanded on Palestinian terrorism, when you tried to justify intentional attacks on civilians by Palestinians - if somebody tries to justify intentional Israeli attacks on civilians I will specifically respond to that

]People consider Hamas terrorists, while the intent of their fights is to kill enemy soldiers, but they sometimes might not be able to do it, since they are no where near to a techonology which they can limit the damage radius (People that get effected by it) through.

I have to disagree - I can see absolutely no intent to kill enemy soldiers when somebody is blowing up a wedding party or a schoolbus - this has nothing to do with not being able to limit the damage radius.

Now, without generalizing, aren't those 'innocents' guilty of conquering? Or colonizing? Or taking Palestinian lands from Palestinians?

No they are not - school children cannot be guilty of that by any definition - just as Palestinian children are absolutely not guilty (by association) of blowing up Israeli civilians and therefore should not become victims of Israeli bombardment while being on the beach with their families.

what good cause they're fighting for? You tell me if you know it (And you seem to know it).

Protecting the lives of their people

No it wouldn't, it would be justified with the term 'Freed their lands'.

Justified in the eyes of those who support terrorism - just as in the case of the creation of Israel.

[rory_20_uk]

To try to weigh up who is more guilty than the other IMO is not a worthwhile use of time.

Both are as entities guilty of killing civilians. Both use the last atrocity of the other to justify their next one.

If Israel did not have such a good ally in the USA we might hear more condemnation against them. As it is UN motions get vetoed before they can come about.

Israel is useful to the west to have int he region, whilst most states in the region view Palestine as a good cause to get angry about as it is something that they can't alter and focuses people on problems outside the country.