[mburbank]

Abcdxx; you quote me entirely out of context. I suggest that Israel, if it will not work toward peace despite the fact that they are of course not obliged to do so, despite the fact that they are an injured party, despite their pain and fear, is the erradication or removal of the Palestinians from the lands they currently live in. You can concider this racially motivated or not. I don't think it is, per se. I argue that Israels current approach works to make more Palestinaian terrorists, not less, more people who need to be killed or imprisoned, not less, and eventually leads to the erradication or forcible removal of these people.

Brandon, I think the argument that all action against Terrorists other than violence and death equals appeasement is highly flawed argument. It commits people either to an endless cycle of violence of violence or the assumption that a 'war' on terrorsim can be won.

I believe violence is corrupting. I believe Israeli soldiers driving bolldozers and firing missiles from helicopters may kill their targets, but they damage themselves as well, and every day the bloodshed goes on is another day it gets harder to tell the sides apart. This is American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, because violence damages those who use it, no matter their purpose.

Terrorism can be fought by persuing criminals and imprisoning them. It can be fought economically. And most of all it can be fought by making sure a generation grows up with hope for a better future. Hopeless, humiliated children grow up to be dangerous adults. An enemy who doesn't care if he lives or dies cannot loose. There are fanatical ideoligies all over the world that preach this approach, and they will always have followers, but the rich countries of the world (and yes, Abcdxx, of course I include other Arab nations, if you think I'm a fan of the Arab worlds extremeist approach to religion or politics you've read me utterly wrong.) have responsability not to feed the suffering that fills the coffers and armies of these fanatics.
Why does it fall to us? Because we can never kill them all.

Blood feuds only end three ways. Everyone dead on one side, everyone dead on both sides, or when one side ends the cycle of retalliation. I don't see that as appeasement, and I'm not suggesting abandoning the fight against terrorist anymore than I'd tell the police not to arrest murderers.

But if the police blew murders to bits and took bystanders with them, I'd think it was counterproductive. And if my child was unfortunate enough to die in the execution of even mass murderer, I wouldn't call it justice. If I'd been hurt enough, I might even take up arms against the police myself for know other reason than despair and vengance.