Israel MAY be ready to endorse a two State solution

[Orignal Earl]

kyles's argument always wins

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
*blockades the 'autonomous' area of palestinian land*
*wall off occupied land*
*rains white phosphorous over schools that they knew had no militants*
*is israel*

BUT THEY SHOT BOTTLE ROCKETS AT US!

Yes, that just about sums up Israel's recent actions and anyone attempting to justify these actions should be ashamed.

Firing rockets into Israel is no less deserving of condemnation; however, the subsequent reaction demonstrated a flagrant disregard for restraint, the wishes of the international community and, more importantly, the lives of Palestinian civilians.

If the goal is to irradicate the terrorism of extremists, I do not feel that we will accomplish much by indiscriminately bombarding the homes of the Palestinian people.

Israel has failed, the Palestinian authorities have failed and the international community has failed and I do not feel that anyone could make a convincing argument against the need for drastic change on all sides.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

If the goal is to irradicate the terrorism of extremists, I do not feel that we will accomplish much by indiscriminately bombarding the homes of the Palestinian people.

The fault in your reasoning is that the terrorists are not the extremists, but the democratically elected majority of the population.

If the Palestinians want Israel to stop bombing hospitals and schools then maybe they should stop using those locations as bases of operation and missile launching sites.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Red Irish

If the goal is to irradicate the terrorism of extremists, I do not feel that we will accomplish much by indiscriminately bombarding the homes of the Palestinian people.

The fault in your reasoning is that the terrorists are not the extremists, but the democratically elected majority of the population.

If the Palestinians want Israel to stop bombing hospitals and schools then maybe they should stop using those locations as bases of operation and missile launching sites.

The fault in your reasoning is that unarmed civilians cannot be held responsible for the actions of armed terrorists, elected or otherwise. When have we witnessed the British or Spanish governments blanket bombing Belfast or Bilbao? Would you advocate such action?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Red Irish

If the goal is to eradicate the terrorism of extremists, I do not feel that we will accomplish much by indiscriminately bombarding the homes of the Palestinian people.

The fault in your reasoning is that the terrorists are not the extremists, but the democratically elected majority of the population.

If the Palestinians want Israel to stop bombing hospitals and schools then maybe they should stop using those locations as bases of operation and missile launching sites.

The fault in your reasoning is that unarmed civilians cannot be held responsible for the actions of armed terrorists, elected or otherwise. When have we witnessed the British or Spanish governments blanket bombing Belfast or Bilbao? Would you advocate such action?

Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.
And has been demonstrated over the years; many have no qualms on attacking Israeli military and/or civilians.

this may not be 100%, but as long as they choose to hide among their brethren Israel has only two choices.
Turn the other cheek or slap back.
Israel has turned the other cheek too many times which has embolden the Palestinians and Arabs each time.
It is only when Israel uses disproportionate force that the Arabs sit up and take notice and cry mea culpa. Then they rinse and repeat the same scenario once people forget their transgressions.

No matter what the UN, Arabs, West or anyone else thinks; Israel is not going to agree to anything that is felt to jeopardize security based on PRESENT actions or the Arab and Palestinians.

Egypt and Jordan have seen the light; let the Palestinians and their sponsors start to also.
The longer it takes to open those eyes, the more the Palestinians will suffer/sacrifice.
Land has been lost for 30 years due to their actions - how much more can they lose over the next 10-30 years.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Red Irish

If the goal is to eradicate the terrorism of extremists, I do not feel that we will accomplish much by indiscriminately bombarding the homes of the Palestinian people.

The fault in your reasoning is that the terrorists are not the extremists, but the democratically elected majority of the population.

If the Palestinians want Israel to stop bombing hospitals and schools then maybe they should stop using those locations as bases of operation and missile launching sites.

The fault in your reasoning is that unarmed civilians cannot be held responsible for the actions of armed terrorists, elected or otherwise. When have we witnessed the British or Spanish governments blanket bombing Belfast or Bilbao? Would you advocate such action?

Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.
And has been demonstrated over the years; many have no qualms on attacking Israeli military and/or civilians.

The majority of Palestinian citizens are armed? Can you substantiate this claim?

this may not be 100%, but as long as they choose to hide among their brethren Israel has only two choices.
Turn the other cheek or slap back.

Thankfully, I see other choices. I hope those with decision-making powers share my vision.

Israel has turned the other cheek too many times which has embolden the Palestinians and Arabs each time.
It is only when Israel uses disproportionate force that the Arabs sit up and take notice and cry mea culpa. Then they rinse and repeat the same scenario once people forget their transgressions.

I am not an Arab, but I assure you that when I saw hundreds of innocent women and children being killed on prime time news, I sat up and took notice.

No matter what the UN, Arabs, West or anyone else thinks; Israel is not going to agree to anything that is felt to jeopardize security based on PRESENT actions or the Arab and Palestinians.

That remains to be seen. Certainly Israel is no stranger to ignoring the UN, human rights organisations and just about everyone else, but they are becoming increasingly isolated on the international stage: most people don't advocate the blanket bombing of areas filled with women and children.

Egypt and Jordan have seen the light; let the Palestinians and their sponsors start to also.
The longer it takes to open those eyes, the more the Palestinians will suffer/sacrifice.
Land has been lost for 30 years due to their actions - how much more can they lose over the next 10-30 years.

I agree with you that the Palestinians must also be prepared to make difficult concessions and must share their part of the responsibility for the situation in which they live. However, the amount of land they lose over the next 10-30 years may also largely depend on the international community's willingness to turn a blind eye to Israel's actions.

 

[Modelworks]

I was siding with Israel with this a few years back but their actions over the past couple years changed my mind. If any other country had done what Israel has done, the UN and other countries would be all over them complaining about sanctions. But it is Israel so nobody says anything. I read about how Israel demolishes Palestinian homes in Israel claiming they are build without permits, but those same type homes that were Jewish without permits were given permits and allowed to stay. For all the equality Israel preaches, they don't seem to practice what they preach.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I was siding with Israel with this a few years back but their actions over the past couple years changed my mind. If any other country had done what Israel has done, the UN and other countries would be all over them complaining about sanctions. But it is Israel so nobody says anything. I read about how Israel demolishes Palestinian homes in Israel claiming they are build without permits, but those same type homes that were Jewish without permits were given permits and allowed to stay. For all the equality Israel preaches, they don't seem to practice what they preach.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Lemon law]

As the OP on this thread, the following link may explain that any hope invested in Netanyuhu may be misplaced after the Obama Netanyuhu meeting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...RzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXNvbmx5

And if Israel is not going to be a willing peace partner, its almost a certainty that Israel will not find Obama as supportive as GWB.

Now its somewhat the Arab leaders turn, they too will try to pressure Obama, with the simple thesis, that if you do not like Israel's unwillingness to do anything real to solve an ongoing 60 year conflict, just stay neutral, and don't keep enabling Israel by vetoing every UN effort to bring Israel to account.

Sadly, GWB did not, and as a result, the Annapolis peace conference that Condi Rice brokered, accomplished nothing.

If anything, Israel is the last apartheid State left on earth, South Africa's version died peacefully under international pressure, and Israel's even more biased version can only end when the USA gets with the program, as the last holdout, and joins the rest of the international community.

Israel, in getting that UN mandate in 1948, did not have to choose apartheid policies in 1948, sadly it did, and until those apartheid policies change, the region will never know any peace. Like Solomon's baby, the Holy land can thrive if it is shared, but can't live if it it is not shared.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As the OP on this thread, the following link may explain that any hope invested in Netanyuhu may be misplaced after the Obama Netanyuhu meeting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...RzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXNvbmx5

And if Israel is not going to be a willing peace partner, its almost a certainty that Israel will not find Obama as supportive as GWB.

Now its somewhat the Arab leaders turn, they too will try to pressure Obama, with the simple thesis, that if you do not like Israel's unwillingness to do anything real to solve an ongoing 60 year conflict, just stay neutral, and don't keep enabling Israel by vetoing every UN effort to bring Israel to account.

Sadly, GWB did not, and as a result, the Annapolis peace conference that Condi Rice brokered, accomplished nothing.

If anything, Israel is the last apartheid State left on earth, South Africa's version died peacefully under international pressure, and Israel's even more biased version can only end when the USA gets with the program, as the last holdout, and joins the rest of the international community.

Israel, in getting that UN mandate in 1948, did not have to choose apartheid policies in 1948, sadly it did, and until those apartheid policies change, the region will never know any peace. Like Solomon's baby, the Holy land can thrive if it is shared, but can't live if it it is not shared.

Did you know that in 1937, due to the Arabs in Palestine were revolting, the British proposed a two-state solution to create a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine? In that proposal, the area to be Israel was a thin strip of land from Tel Aviv to Haifa, not much larger then the Gaza Strip today, with the Arabs getting the rest. The Arabs rejected the offer because the only acceptable agreement for them was for the Jews to get nothing. The situation has not changed since.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
The fault in your reasoning is that the terrorists are not the extremists, but the democratically elected majority of the population.

If the Palestinians want Israel to stop bombing hospitals and schools then maybe they should stop using those locations as bases of operation and missile launching sites.

There are multiple faults with your argument:

1: Hamas only won by a plurality, not a majority.

2: Besides having a terrorist wing, Hamas does a lot of social work for Palestinians which won them many of those votes.

3: Fatah has a terrorist wing too, but that gets overlooked because many Fatah leaders corruptly assist Israel in subjugating Palestinians to Israel while colonizing the West Bank, which lost Fatah a lot of votes.

5 Fatah's terrorist wing was shooting rockets at Israel back when Hamas was trying to maintain a cease fire.

4. Do you have any proof of Hamas using hospitals or schools as bases of operation and missile launching sites during the Gaza assault? The only thing close to real evidence I've seen was a video Israel released which turned out to be from years prior.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Did you know that in 1937, due to the Arabs in Palestine were revolting, the British proposed a two-state solution to create a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine? In that proposal, the area to be Israel was a thin strip of land from Tel Aviv to Haifa, not much larger then the Gaza Strip today, with the Arabs getting the rest. The Arabs rejected the offer because the only acceptable agreement for them was for the Jews to get nothing. The situation has not changed since.

I know that the Peel commission proposal was a reaction to belligerents on both sides, would have made Israel multiple times the size of the Gaza Strip, and was rejected by many Zionist leaders who were insistent on taking of all of Palestine and some even more. The only thing notably appealing to Zionist leaders in that partition was the *endorsement* of ethnic cleansing it carried.

How did you come up with your absurdly distorted recount of that history?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

 

[kylebisme]

That only proves your taste in videos.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Did you know that in 1937, due to the Arabs in Palestine were revolting, the British proposed a two-state solution to create a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine? In that proposal, the area to be Israel was a thin strip of land from Tel Aviv to Haifa, not much larger then the Gaza Strip today, with the Arabs getting the rest. The Arabs rejected the offer because the only acceptable agreement for them was for the Jews to get nothing. The situation has not changed since.

I know that the Peel commission proposal was a reaction to belligerents on both sides, would have made Israel multiple times the size of the Gaza Strip, and was rejected by many Zionist leaders who were insistent on taking of all of Palestine and some even more. The only thing notably appealing to Zionist leaders in that partition was the enforcement of ethnic cleansing it carried.

How did you come up with your absurdly distorted recount of that history?

In what way have I distorted what happened? I said nothing regarding the Jews support for the plan, which as you stated were mixed. However the downfall of the plan was singularly the Arab leaders whom outright rejected any two state solution.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
That only proves your taste in videos.

I do not go looking for them.

It is all the people here that link to the youtube and CNN pages everytime something flares up

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Did you know that in 1937, due to the Arabs in Palestine were revolting, the British proposed a two-state solution to create a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine? In that proposal, the area to be Israel was a thin strip of land from Tel Aviv to Haifa, not much larger then the Gaza Strip today, with the Arabs getting the rest. The Arabs rejected the offer because the only acceptable agreement for them was for the Jews to get nothing. The situation has not changed since.

I know that the Peel commission proposal was a reaction to belligerents on both sides, would have made Israel multiple times the size of the Gaza Strip, and was rejected by many Zionist leaders who were insistent on taking of all of Palestine and some even more. The only thing notably appealing to Zionist leaders in that partition was the *endorsement* of ethnic cleansing it carried.

How did you come up with your absurdly distorted recount of that history?

In what way have I distorted what happened? I said nothing regarding the Jews support for the plan, which as you stated were mixed. However the downfall of the plan was singularly the Arab leaders whom outright rejected any two state solution.

As I said above, you mentioned the belligerents on one side while ignoring the other, massively understated the size of the proposed Jewish state, and of course put all the blame on Arabs for not accepting the partition even though Zionists weren't sold on it either.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
I do not go looking for them.

It is all the people here that link to the youtube and CNN pages everytime something flares up

Well if you did care to look around for videos, you'll find plenty more of unarmed Palestinians, as having lived under Israeli occupation for decades the vast majority are.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

You seem intent on perpetuating a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many unarmed civilians, including children, died in the recent series of blanket bombardments. The images of the dead were broadcast on prime time news around the world, if you somehow missed all of this, I suggest you look at those videos. You could start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...east/07mideast.html?hp

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Did you know that in 1937, due to the Arabs in Palestine were revolting, the British proposed a two-state solution to create a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine? In that proposal, the area to be Israel was a thin strip of land from Tel Aviv to Haifa, not much larger then the Gaza Strip today, with the Arabs getting the rest. The Arabs rejected the offer because the only acceptable agreement for them was for the Jews to get nothing. The situation has not changed since.

I know that the Peel commission proposal was a reaction to belligerents on both sides, would have made Israel multiple times the size of the Gaza Strip, and was rejected by many Zionist leaders who were insistent on taking of all of Palestine and some even more. The only thing notably appealing to Zionist leaders in that partition was the *endorsement* of ethnic cleansing it carried.

How did you come up with your absurdly distorted recount of that history?

In what way have I distorted what happened? I said nothing regarding the Jews support for the plan, which as you stated were mixed. However the downfall of the plan was singularly the Arab leaders whom outright rejected any two state solution.

As I said above, you mentioned the belligerents on one side while ignoring the other, massively understated the size of the proposed Jewish state, and of course put all the blame on Arabs for not accepting the partition even though Zionists weren't sold on it either.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
I do not go looking for them.

It is all the people here that link to the youtube and CNN pages everytime something flares up

Well if you did care to look around for videos, you'll find plenty more of unarmed Palestinians, as having lived under Israeli occupation for decades the vast majority are.

Had the Arabs not attacked in '48 and '56; the geographical borders for the State of Israel would be a lot smaller.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

You seem intent on perpetuating a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many unarmed civilians, including children, died in the recent series of blanket bombardments. The images of the dead were broadcast on prime time news around the world, if you somehow missed all of this, I suggest you look at those videos. You could start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...east/07mideast.html?hp

I am not denying that there were unarmed civilians and children that were harmed.

I am stating that most households of Palestinians have weapons. And food is not what they are used for.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

You seem intent on perpetuating a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many unarmed civilians, including children, died in the recent series of blanket bombardments. The images of the dead were broadcast on prime time news around the world, if you somehow missed all of this, I suggest you look at those videos. You could start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...east/07mideast.html?hp

I am not denying that there were unarmed civilians and children that were harmed.

I am stating that most households of Palestinians have weapons. And food is not what they are used for.

Many were killed rather than harmed. I still fail to see your point. There is no justification for the carnage and mass destruction of Israel's recent attacks, or do you feel differently?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

You seem intent on perpetuating a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many unarmed civilians, including children, died in the recent series of blanket bombardments. The images of the dead were broadcast on prime time news around the world, if you somehow missed all of this, I suggest you look at those videos. You could start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...east/07mideast.html?hp

I am not denying that there were unarmed civilians and children that were harmed.

I am stating that most households of Palestinians have weapons. And food is not what they are used for.

Many were killed rather than harmed. I still fail to see your point. There is no justification for the carnage and mass destruction of Israel's recent attacks, or do you feel differently?

The Palestinians INTENTIONALLY put civilians in harms way and WANT them to get killed, so that they can dupe the gullible (and give the anti-semites an excuse to justify their hatred).

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

You seem intent on perpetuating a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many unarmed civilians, including children, died in the recent series of blanket bombardments. The images of the dead were broadcast on prime time news around the world, if you somehow missed all of this, I suggest you look at those videos. You could start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...east/07mideast.html?hp

I am not denying that there were unarmed civilians and children that were harmed.

I am stating that most households of Palestinians have weapons. And food is not what they are used for.

Many were killed rather than harmed. I still fail to see your point. There is no justification for the carnage and mass destruction of Israel's recent attacks, or do you feel differently?

The Palestinians INTENTIONALLY put civilians in harms way and WANT them to get killed, so that they can dupe the gullible (and give the anti-semites an excuse to justify their hatred).

That is true, so who is worse, the Palestinian authorities or those who drop the bombs into civilian areas? In any event, unarmed Palestinian civilians, including children, are caught in the crossfire. It used to be so easy to whip out the "anti-semite" card when anyone criticised Israel, but not any more: they have gone too far. The fact that the Jewish people have suffered horrendously throughout history does not give them licence to inflict similar suffering on other peoples and this is precisely what they are doing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Majority of the unarmed civilians (teen and above) are armed.

You constantly spout hot-air and out right lies and after I call you on them you just jump to a new one. I'd ask you to substantiate your claim here, but I know you can't, so instead I ask you; do you have no concept of shame?

Look at videos of Palestinians at different occasions. What percentage have weapons?

You seem intent on perpetuating a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many unarmed civilians, including children, died in the recent series of blanket bombardments. The images of the dead were broadcast on prime time news around the world, if you somehow missed all of this, I suggest you look at those videos. You could start here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...east/07mideast.html?hp

I am not denying that there were unarmed civilians and children that were harmed.

I am stating that most households of Palestinians have weapons. And food is not what they are used for.

Many were killed rather than harmed. I still fail to see your point. There is no justification for the carnage and mass destruction of Israel's recent attacks, or do you feel differently?

The Palestinians INTENTIONALLY put civilians in harms way and WANT them to get killed, so that they can dupe the gullible (and give the anti-semites an excuse to justify their hatred).

That is true, so who is worse, the Palestinian authorities or those who drop the bombs into civilian areas? In any event, unarmed Palestinian civilians, including children, are caught in the crossfire. It used to be so easy to whip out the "anti-semite" card when anyone criticised Israel, but not any more: they have gone too far. The fact that the Jewish people have suffered horrendously throughout history does not give them licence to inflict similar suffering on other peoples and this is precisely what they are doing.

The Palestinian militants need to accept that there will be a State of Israel and stop using civilians as a shield. That goes against the concept of civilized war - keep the civilians out of it. Since they do not want to recognize such a concept; they are forcing the civilians to be part of the conflict.

At this point the militants have caused two wrongs. Refusing to accept Israel by continuing warfare against it and using civilinas as part of their attack strategy. If Israel does nothing, it just encourages the militants to continue to expand of the tactics that are perceived to be working.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The Palestinian militants need to accept that there will be a State of Israel and stop using civilians as a shield. That goes against the concept of civilized war - keep the civilians out of it. Since they do not want to recognize such a concept; they are forcing the civilians to be part of the conflict.

At this point the militants have caused two wrongs. Refusing to accept Israel by continuing warfare against it and using civilinas as part of their attack strategy. If Israel does nothing, it just encourages the militants to continue to expand of the tactics that are perceived to be working.

According to the New York Times report I cited above, at least a quarter of the Palestinian casualties were unarmed civilians. Can you unambiguously condemn Israel's recent military actions, or is that asking too much? I also blame the Palestinian militants, I have yet to see you blame Israel in any shape or form. The picture you are presenting is too simplistic: the good guys and the bad guys, the cowboys and the indians. Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

From the aforementioned article:

United Nations officials initially put the Jabaliya death toll at 30 and said 55 were wounded, with several in critical condition. Palestinian hospital officials said 40 people had been killed, among them 10 children and 5 women.

The death toll in Gaza reached around 640 on Tuesday, according to Palestinian health officials. The United Nations has estimated that about one-fourth of those killed were civilians, though there have been no reliable and current figures in recent days.