Indeed

A very (I think) powerful argument on the pro-Israel and anti-destruction-of-the-world side of the fence:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-can-the-world-be-blind-to-israels-existential-threats/

And some of the stories are really fishy. Remember the claims from certain sources, including the UN, that Israeli mortar fire had destroyed a school and killed civilians? Apparently not.

The Onion gets it right on Israel

BAM.

What he said..

I know, I know, I am biased.

Look, Bush screwed up on some things. He took us to war under false pretenses. However, Congress approved - he should not shoulder all of the blame (which he has not even tried to deflect). He appointed officials who did not look out for us economically - but then, Congress didn't look out for us, either. But of course everyone knows Bush...the (Democratic) leaders of Congress are significantly less well-known.

Of course I'm not going to change anyone's minds, most likely. Most of my friends and people I discourse with regularly are either part of the choir or are almost diametrically opposed to my views. But that's not to say that everything is black and white.

It's a harsh reality, but prevention and preemption are not looked upon too kindly by many people, it seems. Now I don't believe it is warranted in all cases, but Iraq was one in which it was, in my mind. For those who don't like Israel and think they are tyrants or meanies, I'm sure this means little...but I agree with Peres: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3658858,00.html

Interesting Suggestion

I think Ryan Harkin's suggestion makes a lot of sense...but I just wonder whether Israel or any other (sane) country would opt for that while they are being fired upon.

http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/01/07/a-suggestion-for-israel/

What's with the slant?

I just can't tell if it's all politically motivated or if it's something that some people are eating/drinking/breathing. I understand that certain nationalities/ethnicities relate to other countries differently, but I can't understand any rational (keyword) support for Hamas. To make this clear, it is a tragedy that Palestinian innocents are dying, but it is not Israel's fault.

If Mexico were constantly firing rockets into Texas, even despite ceasefire agreements, how long do you think we would wait before retaliating? The fact is, we wouldn't care if the rest of the world denounced us for fighting back. If Mexico were firing missiles at us from Tijuana, for example, and we killed some civilians by firing back, we would ask what the hell the Mexican military was doing with missiles in a non-military zone or what civilians were doing in/near a military base.

In my mind there is little doubt that Hamas is using its civilian population as a shield to hide behind.

Even Palestians know this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/06/ap-two-residents-saw-hamas-firing-mortars-near-un-school/

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/06/2009-01-06_from_her_lips_to_gods_ear_the_fury_of_a_.html

Two summarize the above two bits of reporting, two Palestian witnesses contacted the Associated Press and told them that soldiers were firing mortars from near a school.

A grieving Palestinian mother who lost her daughter cried out for HAMAS, not Israel, to be exterminated by God.

How is it, then, that we have demonstrators decrying Israel? Even now, as third parties are trying to set up 3-hour ceasefires in order to deliver food and humanitarian aid to the embattled civilians in Gaza, peace is failing. Why? Because Hamas fires at Israel and Israel retaliates. But would you just sit there while being fired upon? 

Meanwhile the UN and the EU are worthless, as usual.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/07/israel.gaza/index.html

About the school mentioned above, from which Hamas soldiers were firing mortars:

"We are 99.9 percent certain that there were no militants. There were no militant activities in the school or in the school compound," said Gunness of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency."

What? There are reported witnesses! Someone is pushing an agenda, and it stinks.

Edit:

Another example of what I perceive to be an unfair bias, from CNN.com:

"But minutes after the three-hour truce was set to begin at 1 p.m., Israeli forces fired at militants in the Hamas-ruled Palestinian territory.

The strikes came after militants targeted Israeli forces "almost immediately," Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman Peter Lerner said."

Note how the construction of these sentences implies that Israel broke the creasefire. Three hours into it, "Isreali forces fired at militants in the Hamas-ruled...territory." THEN the article says that Hamas struck first. Here's how I would have worded the same idea:

"Only minutes after the three-hour truce was set to begin, Israel responded to an attack made by Palestinian militants."

I think the qualification of self-defense is a crucial point that many media (and government) sources are failing to make.  If we agree not to fight and you hit me, YOU broke the agreement, not I when I hit you back.