<I doubt if there's anyone in the world besides those on this board who doubt the Israelis shot that harmless kid, including the Israelis.

Who on this board said they didn't? Anything is possible but not necessarily likely.

And not from the "bunkers" of Burley's imagination.

So, there are no bunkers?

An awesome demonstration of mind over matter.

Cute, typical and added nothing.

At one point in the debate someone said "Find one instance prior to 1947 where Jewish terrorism resulted in the deaths of civilians."

If you can link that statement, you have an Ace. By my recollection the statement was, "where Jewish terrorism targeted civilians".

Found lots of them - the King David Hotel was only one.

King David was a military/political target. Casualties were nearly 10-1 military. Not nice but still military.

The Jews hung two British soldiers not in the heat of any battle, but because of what the soldiers had done, but just to "send a message".

The key word here is soldiers. Ruthless, yes, wrong, probably but try this:

The jews hung two children, not in the heat of battle but just to send a message

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

(But the same people who will deny the US economy was the strongest in the world in early 2001 can do anything with their minds and reality.)

Obsessive-compulsive, seek help.

Now, without an army, if the Palestinians are going to defend themselves, they have to resort to "terrorism".

Not to pick nits but they could resort to civil disobedience, which would gain them their state but would not destroy Israel.

And, every action by the Israeli Army is against a civilian population.

Or, every civilian is a soldier. Choose the designation that suits you depending on whether they are killing or being killed.

If both sides were given fair play in the press, I think we'd be fed up with them both.

Who isn't?