Are you really that ignorant, or just feigning stupidity"
Israel wouldn't be "bulldozing Palestinian homes" if Egypt wasn't smuggling weapons to the terrorists through tunnels. Weapons which are used to murder innocent people because they are Jews. And are you foolish enough to believe the so-called "protesters" Israel shot at weren't being used as human shields by Palestinian terrorists?
Israel and Sharon are not responsible for the deaths of Palestinian innocents.
The Israeli Defense Forces try to prevent Palestinian civilian deaths during battle. The Palestinian terrorists define the battle as a war against Israeli civilians.
If Palestinian terrorists would distance themselves from Palestinian civilians, less Palestinian civilians would die. Conversely, if the IDF did not pursue these terrorists, more Israeli civilians would die.
If Israel were targeting civilians, the Palestinian death toll would be exponentially higher. More Palestinians are killed by terrorist leaders under false accusations of collaboration with Israel than are killed by the IDF.
If a gun is pointed at a soldier from behind a civilian, and the civilian is killed in the exchange of fire, who is to blame? If a young person goes out to throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at soldiers and gets killed, who is to blame? If an organization sends one killer after another to murder innocent civilians, and in response the other side attempts to destroy the members of that organization and civilians are killed, who is to blame?
The only answer is those who conduct that type of war.
It is the Palestinian "leadership" who have abandoned all sense of humanity in their methods that are to blame. And it is precisely Israel's measured response that this leadership depends upon for its survival.
Why should the US be "balanced"? If the Palestinians sought any "peace" that did not include building their "State" on the mutilated corpse of Israel, perhaps we would be!
S.
Oh, and one more thing, regarding your comment that "Israelis are far more critical of Israeli policy than Americans are," maybe this will further open your eyes:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0504/lonely_crowd.php3
Here is the article he wrote, unbelievable
The Bush and Kerry Tilt
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 26, 2004
George Bush and John Kerry disagree on almost every issue, with one crucial exception: they compete to support a myopic policy that is unjust, that damages our credibility around the world and that severely undermines our efforts in Iraq.It's our Israel-Palestine policy, which has become so unbalanced that it's now little more than an embrace of the right-wing jingoist whom Mr. Bush unforgettably labeled a "man of peace": Ariel Sharon.
American presidents have always tried to be honest brokers in the Middle East. Truman, Johnson and Reagan were a bit more pro-Israeli, while Eisenhower, Carter and George H. W. Bush were a bit cooler, but all aimed for balance.President Bush tossed all that out the window as he snuggled up to Mr. Sharon. Mr. Bush gazes admiringly as Mr. Sharon responds to terrorist attacks by sending troops to bulldoze Palestinian homes and shoot protesters, and he dropped President Clinton's intensive efforts to reach a peace deal. Prof. Michael Hudson of Georgetown University describes present Middle East policy as "a bumbling incompetence, running here or there but doing nothing consistently.
"Our embrace of Mr. Sharon hobbles us in Iraq even more than those photos from Abu Ghraib. Iraqis (in contrast with, say, Kuwaitis) genuinely sympathize with the Palestinians, and everywhere I've been in Iraq ordinary people have asked me why Americans provide the weapons Mr. Sharon uses to kill Palestinians. One lofty aim of the Iraq war was to achieve a Middle East peace. But as retired Gen. Anthony Zinni told the Center for Defense Information this month: "I couldn't believe what I was hearing about the benefits of this strategic move — that the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true, the road to Baghdad led through Jerusalem. You solve the Middle East peace process, you'd be surprised what kinds of other things will work out.
"As for Mr. Kerry, he has generally been sensible on the Middle East. But in recent months he has zigged and zagged away from his record (he used to oppose the Middle East fence, for example) to plant his own wet kisses on Mr. Sharon. It's too bad he doesn't have the leadership to acknowledge what 50 former U.S. diplomats wrote in an open letter to President Bush last month:
"You have proved that the United States is not an evenhanded peace partner. . . . Your unqualified support of Sharon's extrajudicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. This endorsement is not even in the best interests of Israel."Indeed, my guess is that Mr. Sharon has done more to undermine Israel's long-term security than Yasir Arafat ever did.
Mr. Sharon's actions have knocked the legs out from under Palestinian moderates and have bolstered Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mr. Sharon means well — he wants to stop terrorism — but his policies have led Palestinians to turn to Islamic extremists rather than secular nationalists. Now even the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist group, has found God and quotes from the Koran.Particularly in a new age when terrorist attacks could use W.M.D. to kill perhaps thousands at a time, Israel can achieve safety only through a peace agreement with the Palestinians. A model is the unofficial Geneva accord of last October, reached between courageous Israelis and Palestinians — the very people we should be supporting.
In contrast, Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat both display a bloodstained obduracy, suggesting that they might as well have been twins separated at birth. They should be exiled together to some modern St. Helena. Both are hurting their own people by undercutting moderates on the other side.So let's hope that Mr. Kerry zags again, giving us a meaningful choice on Middle East policy. Mr. Bush's break from the usual U.S. role of honest broker is one of his most serious foreign policy errors, and we owe it to Israel as well as to ourselves to fix it."Israelis are far more critical of Israeli policy than Americans are," noted Edward Walker Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt. "If your good friends won't tell you that something's wrong, they're not very good friends."Â Â