No, but in countries that are civilized (as you claim the Arabs not to be) there is the rule of law, including the CRIME of terrorism (which is not war, unless I am mistaken about Israel's laws).
There is also the small legal matter of authorizing the use of deadly force when required to preserve the life of yourself, nearby civlians or your fellow officers. Blowing a rocket-barge up from the air is hardly extrajudicial assasination, it's a nation-scale case of shooting a deranged lunatic with a gun pointed randomly into a busy street.
One could use the same argument: if Israel does not support the occupation and slaughter of Palestinian lands and people, perhaps they should stop silently supporting their government. Maybe they should refuse to pay taxes, or contribute to the economy, or use their land for any military purposes. Otherwise, they support the IDF and are thus target.
Your reasoning, not mine.
The point is that we hardly percieve the Israeli side as the agressors, mostly around areas like Gaza we're
we have pulled out entirely, and still continue to recieve rocket barrages and agressive actions despite having completed our side of the bargain. Unlike Hamas, our government doesn't claim it wants to destroy the Palestinian Entity, but rather negotiate with it for a permanent peaceful settlement, however we're being forced into retaliation by repeating rocket barrages.
You might have a point there, but I am confused: was his wife an Arab Israeli or Jewish? If she was Jewish, I doubt she would allow him to marry her to harm Israel (if she was Arab Israeli I could imagine that).
He was from the town of Nablus under PNA control, she was an Arab-Israeli given to him by the family as part of the muslim tradition of the father deciding on his daughter's marriage. Islamic property rights extend to women, apparently.
So where was the water supply for Israel before it seized the Golan? Why didn't the Syrians poison Israel in the previous wars?
They did try it, in fact, back in 1964 (three years BEFORE the war), the Syrians brought along heavy engineering equipment to try and deflect the flow of the water of the
Banias river, which feeds into the sea of Galilee, Israel's main fresh water reservoir, so that it wouldn't flow into Israel, effectively leaving us all down here to die from the ensuing thirst. The project was eventually abandoned due to multiple incursions from Israel and Syria into each other's territory and eventually the Six Day war, which placed that area firmly into Israeli control.
We may be paranoid, but that paranoia is hardly unrooted.
Israel built it, it can take it down. So if I build my house on your property, then you ask me to take it down, you will be happy with "No, I already built it, it's too expensive"? Maybe it is expensive and difficult to dismantle, but that is not the Palestinians' problem.
It is physically impossible to remove a city of 25,000 inhabitants without crippling your own economy and putting an impossible strain on your welfare system. It simply cannot be done, unless you're suggesting we undertake a Russian "repopulation" program which simply means denying people of their most basic property rights and separating them from all their possessions while we move them to the West.
Instead of insisting over a certain piece of land which cannot be moved, what is the problem with accepting an equal stretch of land somewhere else in a less populated area, where the move will be faster and easier? The areas we're talking about consist of less than 3% of the Palestinian demand.
So when they were not taken seriously, the Irgun said, "Oh, it's alright, we warned them and they didn't listen. They can die now and we will have no moral qualms."? With or without warning, they showed the same disregard for human life as terrorists today.
No, they didn't, and the fact they called ahead to give warning is living proof of that fact. Had they truly had no care for human lives, they'd simply gone ahead and blown up the Hotel without letting anyone know what was happening. This is also, to the best of my opinion, the only action anyone brings up when talking about the Irgun's "terrorist" tendencies, which hardly compares to today's numbers!
I have never been there. But from wikipedia:
Taking the word of an internet encyclopedia over that of a local who admits there's a small minority of Druze loyal to Syria, but that the vast majority isn't doesn't make your point any stronger. It just makes Wikipedia biased, and doesn't change reality one bit - the majority of the inahbitants are loyal to Israel. They serve in the IDF, and vote for the Israeli Parliament. They use our welfare system and for the overwhelming majority, they don't support the terrorists trying to destroy us. After all, it was the Lebanese Hezzbollah that shot multiple rockets into Arab Villages as well in the Galilee region, killing multiple civilians, without even appologizing... we're in this boat together, and you're not going to convicnve me the Israeli-Arabs are second-class citizens when they're clearly not.
