My bible study teacher and friend here, Marv Rosenthal, whom I've mentioned a few times has just written quite a good article on this whole thing giving us much background information putting it all together.  He's a well known and respected Christian Jewish Teacher who knows Israel backwards and forwards.  He's been bringing groups over to Israel for more than 35 years and has watched many things unfold over the years.  He said this:

"If Israel attacked Gaza as she is capable of doing, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Palestinians would die in the crowded urban areas.  And the truth is, the Gaza Palestinians are not totally innocent-in a democratic election, they voted Hamas into power and supported them, knowing fully what their intentions were toward Israel. 

Instead Israel has taken an amazing high road.  She is making every attempt to spare as many civilians as she possibly can.  Those critical of Israel should stop lecturing the anation about collateral damage.  Israel attempts, as does the United States,  to minimize it more than any other nation even though, in the doing, she endangers her own troops, is forced to extend the length of the conflict, and is castigated by the prostituting entity called the United Nations, along with some Western countries, Muslims everywhere and much of the left wing liberal media.  Such attitudes can come from only two sources, first  a total ignorance of facts as they really are; and second, wicked and virulent  anti-Semitism.   Unfortunately, both are alive and well on planet earth." 

For the whole article entitled "The Truth Under Seige" go here.

http://www.zionshope.org/link_truth_0901.aspx

No, just pointing to your pacifier and Athlete's tongue.

Just can't bear to admit your mistakes, can you Doc?

Let me repeat it again: "the comparison to Nazis is abhorent and beneath contempt.  And could only be done by one so filled with hatred of Jews as to seek their erradication"

Since it was rightwinger and not me who decided to bring up the Nazi's, I'm fascinated to hear how you're going to try and wriggle your way out of this one. Oh that's right, you'll probably do what you normally do when I show up your rather awkward non-logic/mistakes and ignore it.

Hitler was actually the first to bring up Nazis in a perjorative sense, but what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?  You were the one that decided to equate the 2.  Are you now repudiating your statement?  Or are you trying to say you are just now trying to censor what words can and cannot be used?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I believe Dr Guy is referring to your usage of the word, not somebody else's.

Since I never equated the two, no. I'm not holding my breath on you apologising for your mistake though.

Ultimately, you either have no idea what the word equate means, and/or are an idiot, and/or can't read. Rightwinger effectively said the Israelis were restrained for not imitating the Nazi's and killing everyone. I responded that such an argument shows just how bad Israel really are if their actions need to be compared to those of the Nazi's in order to show restraint. Neither of us is equating the Israelis to the Nazis, and nothing that was said in any way justifies your ludicrous outburst.

No....what I'm saying is that liberals like you are always so concerned about the welfare of people who hate you with endless passion and seek to destroy you and the civilization you enjoy. Why? Simply put, because you're not like them.

Whether or not the sins of the parents are passed down is irrelevent when it comes to Muslims, however, because, as a matter of tradition, they purposely pass down the hatred and intolerance they wallow in, themselves. So...the sins just more or less go with it, because they're never allowed to get passed it. The Israelis children suffer, too, as a result.

Liberals are so good at ignoring the gist of their opponent's point; turning it on its head and spinning it around. They do this mainly as a defense mechanism, such as when their own position is morally and intellectually inferior. And they know it.

It's still more acceptable, is it, to fire rockets, unprovoked, at civilian targets, while your enemies restrict their attacks, mainly, to military and government ones? Yeah; that's Nazi-ish, alright. How barbaric.

Thaaaat's right....fall back to the moderate position now. Had to happen eventually.

Hamas' hate and compulsion for violence drag it down in the gutter. Israel is up on the sidewalk, standing by the buildings. Which is good, because strategically, the high ground is the best position!

No it isn't....not at all. Was Israel using their own as shields? Were they >purposely< targeting civilian areas? No. 

Why must you continue to blind yourself to the facts? What's so hard about admitting the truth to yourself? Oh yeah....you're a liberal. 'Nuff said.

As a defender of scripture I had to step in.

The bible teaches no such thing.  There is no punishment for the children for their parent's sins. 

Every man is going to be held accountable for his OWN sin.  The bible is clear on that. 

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin."  Deut 24:16

There is a particular scripture in the OT  that says that the sins of the fathers is visited on the children for up to four generations. 

That simply means that children follow what their fathers do so they inherit, so to speak, the same sins.  So, for instance if a father is an alcoholic, he's teaching his children to be alcoholics until one breaks the curse of this particular sin and turns away from it.  When that happens his children are taught a different way.  From what I understand usually there is a cycle of four generations when this happens. 

Careful rightwinger, sarcasm isn't always picked up?

That sums up your entire (non)argument pretty much.

Try telling that to rightwinger.

Casualty numbers still fluctuate:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3660423,00.html

Does anyone know why Israel decided that it must retreat and have all soldies out by the Inaguration? This seems a bit of odd timing. Does anyone have a theory?

If the above-quoted article is correct it could well be that the propaganda machine succeeded in making up enough civilian casualties to make it impossible for Israel to continue without risking world-wide attacks against random Jews (and possibly Christians).

Yes, and that would have been a much better argument to pursue, as opposed to the 'you don't support the killing of children so you're a Hamas supporter', or Doc's bizarre 'you're a despicable anti-semitist because .'. I've never claimed the figures are highly reliable, but they're all that are available since Israel decided to refuse access to journalists (given some of the white phosphorous claims, I can see why!)

I don't know who you are or what the heck you are talking about or why you think that my comment was directed at you.