"<They bombed a major civilian hotel, even killing 15 Jews.>

"The hotel housed the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.

Most of the casualties were British Security Forces."

And - - - ???!!!

<They bombed every available target.>

"Oh really? I didn't see any instances of bombing mosques, weddings, restaurants or market places populated exclusively with civilians."

Clearly an over-statement on my part. The point was they bombed and destroyed that which would have the greatest impact upon the British.

"No one is saying that the Jews weren't ruthless or that they don't deserve some criticism. However, all of the incidents were directed toward military and/or political targets. Other casualties were collateral damage, an unfortunate military concept that you seem to have a problem grasping."

The Palestinians don't have a "military". They are allowed a police force. The do have groups which are sort of like the Sinn Fein, don't have tanks, artillery, helicopters, military fighter jets, and so on. Ain't got 'em. Where are the military targets in any real sense? Where are the hangars hiding Su-27s, the bunkers hiding tanks, the hills with artillery dug in, etc. Ain't there. When the Israeli's bomb and rocket they are doing it with American equipment against civilians.

Many times you see the Palestinians out there in these "military" actions THROWING ROCKS!!! The Irish did that (bricks when they were "well armed") against the British, and before that the last big battle of rocks was Neanderthal against some Cro-Magnon folks in a valley in France, for crying-out-loud! Not even arrows - ROCKS!

Now, the well-armed Palestinian has an AK-47, sort of like Charlton Heston. No body armor, not tanks, not helicopters, no rockets (maybe an RPG once in a while, I don't know). A lousy AK-47, of the type the NRA thinks will help protect it's members from a rogue US government. (Good weapon, don't misunderstand me, but I'll take the tank, thanks.)

Now, to the point of it. If this Board were primarily pro-Palestinian, I would have to take the other side and point out how the Palestinians are vicious b-----ds. You are correct. There is a lot of wrong, and some right, on both sides.

My efforts on this Board aren't to prove the Israeli's are all wrong, and/or the Palestinians are all correct. It's been to try to point out there there are merits and demerits on both sides, and that a more objective point of view which takes that into account not only reflects reality more accurately but would be more constructive. Most of the people on this board regard the Israeli's as "absolutely, positively, 100% not guilty" in this matter. And the Israeli's are as guilty as the last person to use that phrase.

It doesn't hurt to understand the other guy. That does not mean agree, it does mean coming to see that from their point-of-view there is a certain logic to their conclusions. THAT DOES NOT MEAN TO AGREE OR CONDONE.

Unfortunately, it's easier to view the world as black OR white, as good OR evil, as right OR wrong, without seeing that there are elements of each in just about every situation. That, though, is harder to do, but does seem to come with enough experience.

Arf