Slashdot Mirror


Israelis Sue Government For Laser Cannons

An anonymous reader writes "Residents of a southern Israeli town want a real-life laser cannon to protect them against Palestinian rocket attacks. And they're suing the national government, for failing to provide the ray gun defense. The U.S.-Israeli Tactical High Energy Laser project was widely considered to be the most successful energy weapon ever built. But the toxic chemicals needed to generate THEL's megawatts of power made the thing a logistical nightmare. It was scrapped. Now, the residents of Sderot want it back. And they're taking Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to court to make it happen."

37 of 736 comments (clear)

  1. Please stay on topic by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we all please make an effort to keep the comments on track, and not diverge into a "Israelis/Jews are evil" fest?

    The residents of Sderot have every right to expect their government to protect them and if the government is refusing to take any preventative action, while over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action.

    Please note that they're not strapping bombs to themselves and running into cafes or government buildings - they're taking a legal action in a desperate request for help.

    To pre-empt the comments that will follow, it's not relevant to point out Israeli action in Gaza and get into a debate over whether it's justified or not - this topic is about residents of Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.

    If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.

    1. Re:Please stay on topic by jmv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we all please make an effort to keep the comments on track, and not diverge into a "Israelis/Jews are evil" fest?

      Instead, we should stick to the track of "Palestinians/Muslims are evil", right?

      over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action.

      So New York citizens should also sue over the WTC attacks?

      Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.

      should probably read "over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from its nation, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over ...".

      If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.

      Agreed. It's a circle of violence that is not restricted to one side, and the only way to break it is for one side to just stop. Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is probably too disorganised to commonly decide on anything. That means the only hope is for Israel to stop it, but I'm not too hopeful that will happen.

    2. Re:Please stay on topic by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Instead, we should stick to the track of "Palestinians/Muslims are evil", right?

      No, we should stick to the topic at hand. I never once said anything about Palestinians/Muslims being evil, you just made the assumption that I must hate them, because I don't hate Jews. Is the world that black and white to you? You either hate Jews and love Palestinians or vice versa?

      So New York citizens should also sue over the WTC attacks?

      Sure, why not? Sue the Saudi government, if you can prove a link. Sue the US government for not detecting it. Whatever - if someone has negligence, then so be it. If no one has negligence, then you don't sue.

      However your example is a bad one - the US govt. can reasonably claim it had no idea of the impending 9/11 attack - the Israeli govt. cannot make such a claim; when rocket attacks occur each and every single day. Therefore, there's more of a genuine complaint of negligence.

      So if Sderot need to sue their government into action, so be it.

      should probably read "over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from its nation, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over ...".

      I don't see residents of Sderot lining up to fire rockets into Gaza. They're just families trying to get on with their life. Why should they be forced to suffer attack after attack, over actions of other people?

      Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is probably too disorganised to commonly decide on anything. That means the only hope is for Israel to stop it, but I'm not too hopeful that will happen.

      So the Palestinians are absolved of all responsibility? How convenient!

    3. Re:Please stay on topic by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe something like this laser system might push them to enough despair to actually give it up. Yeah, that's some keen insight into human psychology.
      When has that ever worked?
      Total despair means nothing left to lose and people with nothing left to lose make ideal suicide bombers.

      I have to agree, but I'll also point out that going by quite a bit of the propaganda on the Palestinian side says that there won't be any peace until all Israelites are 'pushed into the sea'. Is that quite a bit of palestinian propaganda, or quite a bit of right wing israeli propaganda making those claims about the palestinian propaganda?
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Please stay on topic by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...if the government is refusing to take any preventative action, while over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action


      Ok, so let me start by saying that I think suicide bombings and random rocket attacks on civilians are wrong, immoral, and inexcusable.

      Now that I've gotten the obligatory "I'm not a terrorist apologist" crap out of the way, let me say this:

      They should be suing to force their dumbshit government to start a serious peace process with the Palestinians and develop a working 2-state solution which provides security and prosperity for both peoples. The Israel's government's actions against the Palestinians - the harsh, collective punishment and indiscriminate killings - need to stop, and the Hamas government needs to be taken seriously and negotiated with.

      And before anybody comments that Hamas has pledged to destroy Israel and how you negotiate with someone that believes that, I say, big fucking deal. The Soviets pledged to bury the US, and spent the better part of 50 years pointing enough nuclear weaponry at the other half of the earth to wipe out humanity several times over. Still, there were talks, and attempts to reduce the hostility and bring peace about. You can and must deal with your enemies.

      Terrorism is a bad thing. But terrorism is just a tactic, and one that's used when the warfare situation is asymmetrical. The Israelis have a very modern, well equipped and well trained army, and they make extensive use of it in what they see as a battle to ensure their survival. The Palestinians have no military to speak of, and so it makes sense to them to resort to terrorist attacks in what they see as a battle to gain the right to self determination and freedom the control of Israel.
    5. Re:Please stay on topic by jmv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the holocaust is due to the Jews not attacking other nations? Do you have a source for that or something?

    6. Re:Please stay on topic by lewko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty clear you have missed his point.

      However, the lesson of the Holocaust is that Jews are not simply going to die this time.

      The Arabs don't quite seem to get that.

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    7. Re:Please stay on topic by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GP congratulates a certain set of people for finding a solution which is better than suicide bombing. You think "He is talking about Arabs.". Perhaps it is you who have the stereotyping problem, not the GP. You are putting words in his mouth.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    8. Re:Please stay on topic by oceaniv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      THIS COULD WORK "For any Israeli killed by a rocket fired from Gaza they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Gaza into Israel proper." and "For any Palestinian killed by a rocket fired from Israel they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Israel into Gaza proper." In the past week Palestinians have scored 120 hectares, and the Israeli's 5. I am guessing if this law was implemented 10 years ago Israel would be a small small fraction of what it is right now. I guess your idea might make them think a little. They probably wouldn't go for it though! sorry! :(

    9. Re:Please stay on topic by jmv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For any Israeli killed by a rocket fired from Gaza they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Gaza into Israel proper. Move the fences and all. Keep repeating it until the Palestinians figure it out and stop. Or until they drown, or until they end up in Egypt, depending on which fence you move.

      Or maybe the solution is for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians for every hectare taken until the Israelis figure it out and stop? ...or maybe both solutions are totally idiotic and the conflict isn't going to be solved until both parties realise it?

    10. Re:Please stay on topic by $kr1p7_k177y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of that 7000, how many have have died because of them?

      A handful.

      Show me the threat.

    11. Re:Please stay on topic by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who wants to bet the chemicals would kill more people than the rockets?

      The people of the village of Sderot want to take that bet.

      Please pay attention.

    12. Re:Please stay on topic by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The right of return is an absurd idea.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Refugees_and_the_right_of_return

      Due to the first Arab-Israeli war, a significant number of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes inside what is now Israel. These refugees, numbering over four million today (but 700,000 at the time), comprise about half the Palestinian people. Since that time, the Palestinians have called for full implementation of the right of return, meaning that each refugee would be granted the option of returning to his or her home, with property restored, or accept compensation instead.

      Israelis asserted that allowing a right of return to Israel proper, rather than to the newly created Palestinian state, would mean an influx of Palestinians that would fundamentally alter the demographics of Israel, jeopardizing Israel's Jewish character and its existence as a whole. The Israelis also argued that a larger number of Jewish refugees had been pushed out of Arab countries since 1948, and were not compensated, and that most of them ended up in Israel. Four million Palestinians arrving in Israel (pop 7million) form a majority and would be able to vote for (for example) a Hamas government. There's no way any Israeli government, no matter how doveish, will ever accept it.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Please stay on topic by Swampash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: "This is my land! Want proof? See here in this book, an invisible superhero who lives in the sky said so."

    14. Re:Please stay on topic by jmv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They gave them back a shitload of land in hopes of coming to some reasonable compromise.

      Yet, they are still establishing colonies and have yet to comply with UN resolutions.

      The Palestinians decided that launching rockets from their new land at the Israelis was a fine thing.

      Obviously now the best idea I can think of. Even when only thinking in terms of Palestinians' good.

      We (the U.S. and Europe) have poured billions of dollars into the hands of the Palestinians.

      I would suggest you first compare the amount of money the US sent to the Palestinians to the amount of money it sent Israel (hint, at least an order of magnitude difference). An even more interesting thing to look at is the amount the US gives Israel (billions *per year*) vs Israel's military budget. Basically, the US is pretty much paying for all the military gear Israel uses to kill Palestinians.

      I've always thought that if the US had been on the Palestinians' side, we'd see Palestinians bombing Israel with F-16s and Israelis blowing themselves up in Palestine while throwing home-made rockets. Hell, put any two nations in the same economic/political context and you'll see pretty much the same outcome.

      Fuck the Palestinians. They don't want peace. They only wish to kill more Jews, no matter what the cost.

      This is exactly why this conflict isn't going to be solved any time soon. You've got a majority of people on each side who *do* want peace, while at the same time there's a vocal minority that doesn't want peace and blames it on the other side.

    15. Re:Please stay on topic by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, this had been going on for centuries.

      Which centuries? The 3rd and the 20th? Because there wasn't a lot of it in between.

    16. Re:Please stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they will want the chemicals out of their backyard.

    17. Re:Please stay on topic by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, what you are saying is, if someone takes most of your country and forces you into a tiny over crowded part of it, and then they take most of that too, then they offer you the shitty uninhabitable parts back, while keeping control of your infrastructure, they are being generous. Take a look at the map of Israel and Palestine today, all of that used to be Palestine, now it is almost all Israel, the coat the borders and the airspace are ll controlled by Israel, and this super greedy 100% that you talk about is just 100% of the land taken inside the west bank, how can you honestly say that the Palestinians didn't compromise?

      If the Palestinians got what was fair, they would split the entire country 50/50 with equal access to the sea, and air, and equal rights to govern themselves and allow the right of return for Palestinians.

  2. Precision... by lixee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The town in question is Sderot, where most inhabitants are of North African (especially Moroccan) origins. Those tend to be not so hell-bent on Zionism as European Jews because they weren't persecuted as much. I like to think that the government of a country founded on Zionism and so proud of it, would be slightly biased towards the inhabitants of Sderot.

    Also, has anyone of you ever seen the damage katyushas make? Calling those things rockets or spending money to intercept them is ludicrous.

    --
    Res publica non dominetur
  3. Re:If a country needs this much defense. . . by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Heh, yeah, and who exactly is going to make them leave? They are a viable country if for no other reason that no one can get rid of them. Maybe it was a mistake to create Israel, but that was a long time ago: get over it. (It was just as long ago that Cuba unfairly confiscated US property, and it is just as stupid that the US STILL has a trade embargo against Cuba). As for who the land 'rightly' belongs to, that is an argument going back thousands of years, and is frankly irrelevant with Israel and their big weapons sitting right there; they are not going anywhere. If you want to be respected in a conversation about foreign affairs, you're going to have to deal with that fact.

    A few points:
    • There are Arabs living happily in Israel. The Druze are happy Israeli citizens, and the Bedouin are generally friendly with Israelis.
    • Even the Arabs living in Israel who AREN'T happy with Israel would rather live in Israel than in Palastine (West Bank/Gaza).
    • The Palastinian refugees living in Arab countries (like Lebanon) are treated much worse by the Arabs than those in Palastine are by the Jews.
    It's true perhaps that Israel goes a little overboard in their responses to people attacking them, however, they do have at least one neighbor who has sworn explicitly to destroy them, so it is kind of understandable.
    --
    Qxe4
  4. Re:Serriously? Israelis with FREAKING lasers! by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're not going to just cry and go running home after a FREAKING laser attack. Oh no. You can bet that handfuls of Qassam missiles will rain down on a pretty regular basis. What Israel needs is a good read of Dr. Suse's Butter Battle Book and have a sudden outbreak of common sense. Palestine needs to grow the hell up and stop acting like an angry child too.

    Probably not, seeing as how the laser has been proposed as a strictly defensive weapon, to shoot down the rockets/missiles that are ALREADY raining down on a 'pretty regular basis'. Matter of fact, the citizens of the town could suddenly decide to start lobbing explosives back the other way and the attacks wouldn't increase significantly, as Palestine is already throwing as much as they can at them.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  5. Re:If a country needs this much defense. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, your neighbor blows up your garage and builds a condo on the land. You complain. He shoots your children in retaliation. You throw rocks at him. He kills your wife in retaliation. You fire a gun at his house. He flies a jet over your house and fires missiles into it. You invite members of the press to witness what's going on. He shoots them, not realizing he's being videotaped. He denies he did anything wrong. He calls you the vicious neighbor.

  6. Re:Sweet! by lewko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Intent matters.

    The Palestinians try and kill as many babies, women, children and non-combatant civilians as possible. When it happens, they celebrate, just as they did on 9/11 and just as they did last week.

    The Israelis do not try and kill non-combatants, however their job is made harder because the rockets are fired from the middle of townships, as Hamas knows dead Palestinian kids make for good propaganda. Certainly no Israeli celebrates when it happens. That's the difference and it's important.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  7. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you have a problem with that?

    The part where "terrorist" is defined as "whoever we killed"?

  8. Re:Sweet! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a lot of people in the world who believe that unarmed Israeli civilians somehow deserve to be shelled.

    Those same people frequently believe that armed rebel terrorists firing the rockets at them do not deserve to be shot back at by the Israeli military.

    I don't understand it myself, but I'll tell you when I do.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  9. Interesting by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a number of games that you can play where the optimal result requires perfect cooperation between the different teams/players, but where individual greediness can lead to a significant individual gain. That individual gain of course comes at the expense of all other players.

    There is a variant of this type of game that disallows communication between teams. It's been shown that with that setup, there is exactly one way to play:
    1st round: no information is available, so assume maximal cooperation from all other teams, and play your turn accordingly.
    2nd round: Reciprocate the other teams' play: if they played greedy, play greedy. If they played nice, play nice.
    3rd round: repeat approach from round 2 until the end.

    The logic behind this is that greedy players will only play nice when they see the exact consequences of their actions imposed on themselves, and when they see that playing nice is rewarded.

    Applied to the Israel/Palestine conflict, it could mean that the appropriate response to random rocket launches is an immediate retaliatory strike with equal destructive power, aimed at the source of the rockets. On the other hand, the appropriate response to suicide bombers is a little more fuzzy. Send in robot-bombers? Drop a bomb in a random place? Also, it is unclear what the positive feedback for no rocket launches or suicide bombers would be. Resume normal conditions? Stay put? Unlock frozen support funds for hamas?

    I definitely think though that Palestinians in general have to understand that rockets being launched from their territory means that rockets will be launched against them in general as well. It'd be difficult to implement, as it's a completely different approach to dealing with rocket attacks and suicide bombers: personal responsibility and punishment is out, collective punishment is in. Not to mention that a lot of the current preventive measures would have to go out the window as well.

    I doubt that anybody in Israel has the courage to experiment with that.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  10. Re:If a country needs this much defense. . . by Plutonite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to participate in an off-topic discussion, but Israel's treatment of its Arab population (a highly debatable topic with a profound history btw) would be contrary to its own purpose if it is as you say. The whole idea was to establish a "Jewish" nation, so by definition the creation of the state was a very racist mistake indeed. The Arabs living "happily" in Israel are no measure in number to the others whose land is being stolen daily to new settlements being built on it, and who are being mercilessly massacred with their families if they attempt to fight back, where the settlement building is a daily series of facts being created and not something that happened a "long time ago". There are people losing, as we speak, the land that belonged to them for centuries because they do not happen to belong to a particular race. Lasers will not change how utterly disgusting that is, or the those people's efforts to fight back in whatever desperate way they can.

    For the record: I do not condone attacks on civilians by either side, and am as disgusted at the Arab militants as I am at the Israelis. It's just that you're making it sound like Arabs are welcome to live in Israel, whereas this is obviously not true "by definition". Indeed, that's what the whole right-of-return issue with the Palestinian Arabs is all about.

  11. Re:Sweet! by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are a lot of people in the world who believe that unarmed Israeli civilians somehow deserve to be shelled.


    And there are just as many idiots that believe that unarmed Palestinians deserve to be shelled. A Jewish soldier shoots and kills a few Muslims boys playing football so a Muslim soldier (we call them terrorists because we don't like Muslims) fires a rocket at a Jewish village so the Jewish army send in a helicopter to blow up a Muslim market and the Muslims go and blow up a Jewish market...

    and the plebs take sides. Why can't people see that until we stop killing each other there will never be peace. The people in power, both Jewish and Muslim, do not want peace. They are not stupid. They make their money from the fighting. All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance.

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  12. Re:Sweet! by ChameleonDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the shouts of "He started it" just sound like 10 year old boys fighting in the playground. They are both killing each others children and the fighting will not stop until those in power give peace a chance.

    Do you take the same attitude to WWII?

    When people's countries are occupied by others who believe they have some ancient right to lebensraum, you can't expect to be able to scold both sides and tell them to play nicely. This is life, not the playground.

  13. Re:Sweet! by lewko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I'll bite. You've provided one example. Let's say the story is entirely as you tell it. Can you now refer me to the video of Israelis dancing in the streets, handing out sweets? Or perhaps the Israeli streets named after the shooter?

    No, I didn't think so.

    If Palestinian children are being hit by gunfire, perhaps Palestinian gunmen shouldn't be firing from near children.

    It happens all the time in Israel and abroad. Islamists know dead children and crying mothers are good shields when alive and good propaganda when dead.

    http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/22/lebanon-battles-070522.html
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/06/index.html
    http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/03/iraqi_jihadists.php

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  14. Re:Sweet! by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really hate this topic. But I feel obligated to respond to it every time.

    Nobody, for some reason, can admit that BOTH are wrong, and probably share equal blame in the matter. The Israelis invades already occupied land and expects them to hold the Israelis sovereign because some ancient book says so, of course the Palestinians fought back. In this Israel is wrong. The Palestinians purposely targetting civilians is ALSO wrong. The Israelis near genocidal clamp down on said Palestinians is ALSO wrong. And so it goes.

    My problem with this is when someone has the balls to criticize Israel they get branded either pro-Palestinian, or worse, anti-Semitic. To entertain a probable straw-man, don't say that EVERYONE does this, you rarely hear of the Israeli terrorists, or the Palestinian freedom fighters, these terms are just as valid this way, as the way they are commonly used thanks to the brutal tactics on BOTH sides. And yes, both sides can be looked on with sypathetic rhetoric, the Israelis are fighting for their existence, and the Palestinians are fighting against tyranny. Fine... To me this is an indicator that siding with one faction is impossible, since both are semi-justified, and semi-evil.

    Neither side wants compromise, so bloodshed they shall get, and probably deserve.

    The only point of policy I can come down on is that the U.S. has no right to assist either side. Either way we are left morally tainted and bloodied. This is especially true today when our support of Israel is a major contributing factor to the hatred of the West. I'd support which ever side decided to deal with things in accord with international law, and humanistic values, and for the time being it looks like neither even want to come close to this.

    The only fair (albeit now dated) version of this conflict I've seen way David K. Shipler's Arab And Jew. Both sides are indoctrinating each other towards pure hatred and violence, there will never be a valid conversation on this until that stops.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  15. Re:Sweet! by lordholm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "so a Muslim soldier (we call them terrorists because we don't like Muslims)"

    No, they are called terrorists since they are not legal combatants, and their targets are explicitly civilians. A legal combatant is not allowed to conceal his identity as such prior to an attack.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  16. Re:Sweet! by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How people can have more sympathy for people randomly shelling unarmed non-combatants than for their victims is something I really don't want to understand.

    Wait, are you talking about the Israelis or the Palestinians there? Both?

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  17. Re:Sweet! by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..and their targets are explicitly civilians...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive

    --
    bickerdyke
  18. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a Jew I am outraged by this. The so-called Zionists don't like to hear this, but they are doing to the Palestinians exactly what the Nazis did to us. And there are a lot of Jews who agree with me -- don't let AIPAC fool you.

    Of course the Palestinians retaliate. What do you expect them to do when their children, their brothers, their sisters, their cousins, their uncles and aunts, their fathers and mothers are killed?

    I'm posting as AC because when I've protested these atrocities before, I've gotten threatening phone calls at home from thugs who looked me up ("we know where you live"). But when it's time for me to speak out in public, they can't intimidate me.

    It is encouraging to me that most of the posters on Slashdot, who include a fair sampling of intelligent people, don't fall for this Israeli (and U.S.) propaganda bullshit.

    I'm also glad to see a lot of insight into the fact that you can't rule the world with military superiority. That didn't work for Bush in Iraq and it won't work for the Israelis.

    I'm afraid that if the Israelis continue in their arrogance, the Palestinians are finally going to come up with a weapon that the Israelis won't be able to defend against. I won't be happy to see that, but they're bringing it on themselves.

  19. Re:It Was Scraped? by mpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if you're in Israel you apparently can sue. In the USA the Second Amendment allows you to own your own laser cannon but the government is not required to buy one for you.

    With the added irony that if the Israelis do deploy these it'll most likely be the US paying the bill.

  20. Re:Hahaha... by Peaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A. As the GP posted, people were not kicked out in 1948. Virtually all of the peoples chose to leave and became refugees. Some of it was due to wartime activity. A war, which, by the way, was started by those same people who were later complaining (The Jewish side accepted the peaceful UN division plan).

    B. Millions of other refugees were created by WWII around that time, none of which remained refugees 30 years later. These Palestinian refugees are still considered refugees 60 years later! They should assimilate into whatever lands they live in, they are not refugees anymore.

    C. Even if any wrong was done 60 years ago, the grandchildren of the refugees from 1948 are indeed "bad" to be shooting rockets at the grandchildren of the Jews from 1948, who were born to parents who were born there. Whatever happened 60 years ago is now irrelevant to who the lands belong to.

    D. They are not really trying to "conquer back the lands", which would, if successful, require another holocaust, but are just trying to kill as many civilians as they can. They know they cannot conquer the lands or achieve anything but propaganda success with violence, and are indeed focusing on the propaganda side.